Re: ICT bonuses

• From: rob_linham
• Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 02:56:36 -0700
• Message-ID: <000TDAUUK.000T5TLLI.12170551-quizbowl_at_...>

Stan wrote: "The thing I noticed about quite a
few boni at ICT was that the first two parts of a
standard bonus would be hard and then the third part would
be easy, as if to reward the team for getting
through the bonus, if nothing else. Looks to me like
writers (I know I shouldn't criticize writers) got lazy
and needed material to fill out a 3 part bonus.
However, with the large proliferation of 2-part boni, why
not make it one of those instead?"

N.B.:
Speaking here for myself as a random, and not as an NAQT
contractor.

I must admit that I don't actually see the problem
with *where* in the question an easier part is placed.
Quite often, when writing a literature bonus, I will
start with a reasonably easy part such as lead
character or author or even title, to give points to those
who know a little about the the subject, but no more.
Then the later two parts are more involved
questions.

However, with some bonuses (swerve: no way, no "boni"),
putting the easy part at the beginning isn't possible
(for example, the first two parts ask you to identify
novels from plot, then the third is an easier
title-author). I fail to see how that is in an way worse; it is
however logical.

So why not two parts only? Either
because the parts individually aren't worth 15 points, or
because, in the converse situation, it would make the
overall bonus too hard. It's a balancing act.

I'm
not sure if this has answered your question (and if
you were bemoaning simply one part of a question
being too easy then I haven't), but I wouldn't think
twice about where to position such an easier part
within a question.

Rob.

PS Cynical point,
from experience in Oxford IM tournament (the ICQ, for
those in the know!): if you have a structure well-known
where a bonus goes easyish-ok-hardish or anything like
that - i.e. teams know question one is usually
gettable - you hear them when conferring saying things
like "no, it's the first part, that's too obscure"...
Now, while I like logical reasoning, that's going
_too_ far!