Dave Goodman wrote: "In the Antigone example, "Niece of Creon" is such a clue. You immeadiately should know that it is either Ismene or Antigone. A clue like that should never be in the beginning of a tossup because it renders all succeeding clues as either pointless or mere reflex tests. Basically, this kind of clue turns a tossup into a coin flipping exercise. Do you take a 50-50 shot or let your opponent? Totally removes the importance of having knowledge or the ability to anticipate further clues." I think Dave has a valid point. If inserting a 50-50 clue into a toss-up is fair at all -- and I can understand anyone who argues that it is not -- then it should not "sit out there" for 1-2 sentences. Make it a quick lead into the next unique clue, possibly allowing for a snap judgment call. But it certainly is frustrating to hear a 50-50, a bunch of obscure nonsense, and then a giveaway. I will disagree with something that Edmund said earlier, in that a question with a bunch of obscure nonsense before an easy giveaway is worse than a one-sentence question, simply because it wastes time. And don't tell me "the more clues, the better" -- because if the pre-giveaway clues are so obscure that, say, 0-10% of people can answer it in the pre-giveaway range, then excessive cost (length of question leading to a speed check anyway) outweighs benefit (clues allowing that up to 10% to answer the question ahead of the speed check). Just another $.02 -- add it to my growing tab :P -Adam
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:45 AM EST EST