Examing one example: << Scientists hope this branch of music will someday provide the type of safe nuclear power that our sun does.** >> <<So what you have done here is written a "clue" which doesn't test any knowledge; it test the ability to quickly solve a silly riddle. That might be fine if we were playing a different format, where this may have been the only clue and teams had some time to figure out what exactly we were talking about. However in a quiz bowl setting, what happens is that either players will simply ignore the "clue" knowing it to be false, or someone will probably figure out the answer based on no knowledge of fusion jazz at all, other than its existence.>> Technically, knowing that fusion is the nuclear process occuring in the Sun is a tidbit of knowledge, and one must have that knowledge to answer the question based on the lie alone. The knowledge of the existence of fusion jazz is also knowledge. I feel confident that there are some teams out there who would not have answered the question at the end. It may or may not be betterto say that "Architects were inspired by this musical style to build Lockhart Stadium" or "Proponents of this musical style include a band featuring Igor Tamm on piano and Andrei Sakharov on electric guitar," (references to the MLS Miami Fusion and the tokamak fusion reactor, for those playing at home) but those riddles would at least be a bit more challenging and perhaps not as offensive.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:45 AM EST EST