Hosed or not hosed...

[Tegan]

Here is a question which I wrote for use in the lightning round of a frosh-soph tournament last week, and will not be used forthwith. The category is Arts-Music. For the record, it was used in the final round (championship/3rd place), so all four teams who actually saw it were pretty good:

"S'Wonderful", "The Man I Love", and "Embracable You" had lyrics written by which lyricist; the brother of a famous composer.

Afterwards, I had a player get upset over the question claiming that it was clearly unfair (that player had interrupted after "Love", and said Gershwin <prompt> err...George). I disagreed with her based on:

A. The player should have relized that the Gershwins worked together on a great many songs.
B. The player should have realized at an early point in the question that it could have gone either way (George or Ira)
C. The player could have said something to the effect of: "music by George and lyrics by Ira Gershwin", and been fine.

I have heard a number of players gripe about being hosed on landmine like questions. I write landmines from time to time when I am looking to really differentiate players with casual knowledge from players with in depth knowledge. Is something like this still in the "hosed" category of questions, or is this legit? As a question writer, I am interested in hearing both coaches' and players' perspectives (especially players').

[Skepticism and Animal Feed]

I don't know who this Gershwin fellow is (actually, I sort of do, but I had no clue there were two of them), but what you should do with those is make sure that the first item is something which only the one you're asking about worked with. Otherwise, the information at that point is not uniquely identifying and the player has every right to complain about the question.

[DumbJaques]

what you should do with those is make sure that the first item is something which only the one you're asking about worked with. Otherwise, the information at that point is not uniquely identifying and the player has every right to complain about the question.

Exactly. It isn't a matter of that particular question, but more an underlying question philosophy. As a player, I have far more respect for questions which strive to as quickly as possible uniquely identify both the answer by pronoun (this book, he/she, etc.) and remove other answer possibilities.

To answer your question, I'd call that a hose, merely because George is almost universally more recognized as being associated with all those works. There is no reason you can't start with "he wrote the lyrics for. . . "

[dtaylor4]

I have to agree with the above. If emphasis is put on the lyricist, i.e. if the question were to state "...the lyricist, not the composer..." or something like that it wouldn't be as bad, but it's still a hose as is. I hated those kind of bonuses where you had to remember which member of the pair (Gilbert & Sullivan, Lerner & Loewe) did what.

[MLafer]

I would not consider this question a "hose" because I believe, in the case of these songs, George & Ira are roughly equally known in the partnership, unlike, say, a question that said "His Marriage of Figaro..." where the answer ended up being Lorenzo da Ponte, which is definitely a hose.

On the other hand, it's a terrible way to begin the question, as a being with perfect knowledge would be unable to evaluate the answer until the phrase "with lyrics written by...". It isn't so much testing a player's knowledge of the fact that both Gershwins played a part in these works, but rather, forcing a player that knows this to make a coin flip if he wants to buzz in earlier on in the question.

[Stained Diviner]

Maybe this one deserves to be a poll. I would vote Hosed. While your Option C is correct, if this was a lightning round and one of 200 tossups I was hearing that day, I would have done the same exact thing that the student did.

DaGeneral--the first one mentioned is the composer, and the second one is the lyricist.

[Captain Sinico]

The question is a weak hose because it fits the hose criteria. These are:
1. Irregardless of how much one knows, one cannot be sure what the answer to the question is until significantly into the question because the question does not directly and uniquely specify its answer and
2. the most probable answer at the point of the buzz (in this case, "George Gershwin") is not the correct answer.

So it's clear, I consider all questions fitting criterion 1 to be poorly-formed, even if the most probable answer, which I'll define as the most popular guess among knowledgable players at the point of the buzz, happens to be right. Those additionally fitting criterion 2 are hoses. This issue can always be obviated by making the question no longer fit criterion 1. In line with this, one could fix the question at issue simply by re-arranging it thusly:

What lyricist wrote the lyrics for "S'Wonderful", "The Man I Love", and "Embracable You" and is the brother of a famous composer?

MaS

[alkrav112]

Boy, I agree with Sorice... and irregardless of how much one knows about grammar, one can still find a way to use "irregardless."

Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Joyous Kwanzaa, etc. etc.!

[Tegan]

The question is a weak hose because it fits the hose criteria. These are:
1. Irregardless of how much one knows, one cannot be sure what the answer to the question is until significantly into the question because the question does not directly and uniquely specify its answer and
2. the most probable answer at the point of the buzz (in this case, "George Gershwin") is not the correct answer.

Let me ask a question from a stand point of being ignorant:

Does a question always have to eliminate the less probable?

My thinking is that a player who really knew music would know that the answer could go both ways, and thus would know to wait

A player with casual knowledge would go rushing in, and likely get it wrong.

Again, from a standpoint of ignorance (I'm not challenging an opinion. because I truly am interested in what others are thinking), doesn't this question do a job of separating the great player in this field (music), from the player who has no more than a casual knowledge of music (one who doesn't know about Ira's contributions to his brother's music). Someone who did know about Ira Gershwin would know to wait until the question pinned down the proper information.

I guess to put a finer point on it, what would be different from me writing (as Mike Sorice suggested):
What lyricist wrote the lyrics for "S'Wonderful", "The Man I Love", and "Embracable You" and is the brother of a famous composer?

The player with finer knowledge could ring in sooner, and the player with casual knowledge still misses the points. In the alternative scenario, the player with casual knowledge rings in, is wrong, and the other team can get it if they actually know who Ira Gershwin is (for the record, no negs or powers in this case....which certainly alters the conversation a bit).

[zwtipp]

The question is a weak hose because it fits the hose criteria. These are:
1. Irregardless of how much one knows, one cannot be sure what the answer to the question is until significantly into the question because the question does not directly and uniquely specify its answer and
2. the most probable answer at the point of the buzz (in this case, "George Gershwin") is not the correct answer.

Let me ask a question from a stand point of being ignorant:

Does a question always have to eliminate the less probable?

My thinking is that a player who really knew music would know that the answer could go both ways, and thus would know to wait

A player with casual knowledge would go rushing in, and likely get it wrong.

Again, from a standpoint of ignorance (I'm not challenging an opinion. because I truly am interested in what others are thinking), doesn't this question do a job of separating the great player in this field (music), from the player who has no more than a casual knowledge of music (one who doesn't know about Ira's contributions to his brother's music). Someone who did know about Ira Gershwin would know to wait until the question pinned down the proper information.

I guess to put a finer point on it, what would be different from me writing (as Mike Sorice suggested):
What lyricist wrote the lyrics for "S'Wonderful", "The Man I Love", and "Embracable You" and is the brother of a famous composer?

The player with finer knowledge could ring in sooner, and the player with casual knowledge still misses the points. In the alternative scenario, the player with casual knowledge rings in, is wrong, and the other team can get it if they actually know who Ira Gershwin is (for the record, no negs or powers in this case....which certainly alters the conversation a bit).

What about when the situation has both the described players on the same team? The player with casual knowledge still buzzes in and gets it wrong except now the player that actually knows it gets locked out of it.

I think any question that causes players to ring in with an answer that is most probable and gets them wrong is a hose.
You're basically punishing people who have a little bit of knowledge about the answer rather than rewarding the player who has the knowledge.

A good question rewards the player with more knowledge while not punishing players with an acquaintance to the material.

[Captain Sinico]

My thinking is that a player who really knew music would know that the answer could go both ways, and thus would know to wait

A player with casual knowledge would go rushing in, and likely get it wrong.

This is a fallacious premise. It is no more or less likely that someone who knows everything will get this question wrong at any point before the end than someone who has only "casual knowledge" because the answer is unknowable until uniquely identified. Whether or not the perfect knowledge player waits until they know the answer to buzz depends entirely on the strategy they pursue on the question. For example, someone with perfect knowledge and any degree of experience with the game will know that, if they want to get this question, it might not be wise to wait, as someone else may buzz and guess (and, on high school questions, likely be right) before the answer is uniquely identified.
Let's consider the case of the perfect player, someone who knows everything except the answers to the questions a priori, playing on a question that admits plausible guesses long before it uniquely identifies its answer, such as this one. Regardless of the strategy this perfect player pursues on such a question, they are no more likely (are, in fact, on average less likely) to be rewarded by it than someone who knows significantly less. This is precisely because they know they are unable to uniquely identify the answer. We can see this by considering the following:
If the perfect player's strategy is to buzz when they know the answer for certain, they won't buzz until the question has uniquely identified the answer, which is significantly after a plausible guess can be formed in the case of such a question. Thus, this strategy is significantly less than optimal if someone else is able to guess the answer with a good rate of success (which is always the case on high school questions.)
If, conversely, the ideal player's strategy is to buzz when they have a guess they have some (arbitrary) level of confidence in, they're going to guess the most probable answer in their estimation at some point, and they're no better-off than someone who only knows that single answer; are, in fact, probably worse off. Assuming there exists another player who knows what answer is most probable (which, again, will almost always be the case on high school questions), the question will be decided entirely by luck; by who decides to buzz first and whether or not the question has the most probable answer. If the opposition is so foolish as to think there is only one possible answer from a clue that actually admits many, they'll buzz right at that clue. If they happen to be strategically stupid such that they only know the most probable answer, which is likely since the most probable answer is usually the most famous example of whatever it is we're talking about, there is a good likelihood they'll be right.
What happens in reality is that, as a response to bad questions, knowledgeable players adopt bad strategies when playing on them. They either wait until they know the answer for certain, are frequently beaten by those willing to guess, and make for terrible bad question players; or they start guessing the most quizbowl-famous example of whatever the moderator's talking about when they feel good about buzzing and, if they're lucky, become fantastic bad question stars. Either way, if you're playing on bad questions, the result will only measure who knows more and knows it faster by happenstance, which just isn't much fun to me.
The best (and, as far as I know, only) way to avoid this unacceptable situation is to write questions that immediately eliminate every answer but one. This would render moot the question

Does a question always have to eliminate the less probable?

The question writer's eliminating the less probable should never be an issue; the first guessable clue should uniquely identify the answer so that a perfect player already knows it.

MaS

Edit: accidentally posted an incomplete revision.

[leapfrog314]

I think any question that causes players to ring in with an answer that is most probable and gets them wrong is a hose.

I disagree with this -- I think that on occasion it is perfectly fine (and even good) to write questions knowing that most people would buzz in with a particular incorrect answer. Case study: I wrote this question for New Trier's tournament last week.

In the grammatical sense, some obscure types of it include optative, admirative, and generic. More common grammatical ones are imperative, conditional, subjunctive, and indicative. However, these are not tenses, because each one comprises of several tenses. Name this four-letter word which commonly proceeds the words swing, disorder, and ring, and which is the name of a classic first-person shooting game when spelled backwards.
Answer: (Grammatical) Mood

Mr. Reinstein suggested that I put "these are not tenses" earlier in the question because players would buzz in early with that answer. I disagreed and left the question as is. It ended up deciding the final match, as Auburn buzzed in early with -- guess what? -- 'tense'. Bloomington easily got 'mood' after hearing the whole thing, and ended up winning two questions later by a narrow margin.

From the beginning of the question, the answer cannot be 'tense', even though that seems most probable. Personally, if I heard "These are not tenses. In the grammatical..." I would have buzzed in right then. (If they're grammatical, and the question has to say they're not tenses, they're going to be moods.) That's why I left the question as is. In the Gershwin question, all signs point to George Gershwin, and until halfway through the question, there's nothing preventing this from being the answer. Beginning with "This lyricist" prevents the answer from being George, and is completely fair even if some players are tricked into answering 'George'. As a player, I think a question should establish a unique answer very early, so nobody buzzes in with a perfectly correct answer...that ends up being incorrect because of something they didn't hear yet. (Just my 1/50 of a dollar.)

[Skepticism and Animal Feed]

I think any question that causes players to ring in with an answer that is most probable and gets them wrong is a hose.

I disagree with this -- I think that on occasion it is perfectly fine (and even good) to write questions knowing that most people would buzz in with a particular incorrect answer. Case study: I wrote this question for New Trier's tournament last week.

In the grammatical sense, some obscure types of it include optative, admirative, and generic. More common grammatical ones are imperative, conditional, subjunctive, and indicative. However, these are not tenses, because each one comprises of several tenses. Name this four-letter word which commonly proceeds the words swing, disorder, and ring, and which is the name of a classic first-person shooting game when spelled backwards.
Answer: (Grammatical) Mood

Mr. Reinstein suggested that I put "these are not tenses" earlier in the question because players would buzz in early with that answer. I disagreed and left the question as is. It ended up deciding the final match, as Auburn buzzed in early with -- guess what? -- 'tense'. Bloomington easily got 'mood' after hearing the whole thing, and ended up winning two questions later by a narrow margin.

From the beginning of the question, the answer cannot be 'tense', even though that seems most probable. Personally, if I heard "These are not tenses. In the grammatical..." I would have buzzed in right then. (If they're grammatical, and the question has to say they're not tenses, they're going to be moods.) That's why I left the question as is. In the Gershwin question, all signs point to George Gershwin, and until halfway through the question, there's nothing preventing this from being the answer. Beginning with "This lyricist" prevents the answer from being George, and is completely fair even if some players are tricked into answering 'George'. As a player, I think a question should establish a unique answer very early, so nobody buzzes in with a perfectly correct answer...that ends up being incorrect because of something they didn't hear yet. (Just my 1/50 of a dollar.)

Because there is no such thing as an optative tense, you're comparing apples to oranges. I'm sorry to tell you this, but your clues are in fact uniquely identifying from the beginning.

That is not the case with the question in the first post.

[Captain Sinico]

It does, however, disprove Zach's contention. Someone (incidentally, someone considered a pretty good player) thought "tense" was most likely, but the actual probability of that being the answer at the point where that player buzzed was zero. This is simply because that player didn't know the answer from the uniquely identifying clues and decided to hazard a guess; that's fine and so is the question. The actual issue, I think, is with questions that don't uniquely identify their answers; then and only then can one have an actual hose.

MaS

[Captain Sinico]

I guess to put a finer point on it, what would be different from me writing (as Mike Sorice suggested):
What lyricist wrote the lyrics for "S'Wonderful", "The Man I Love", and "Embracable You" and is the brother of a famous composer?

The player with finer knowledge could ring in sooner, and the player with casual knowledge still misses the points. In the alternative scenario, the player with casual knowledge rings in, is wrong, and the other team can get it if they actually know who Ira Gershwin is (for the record, no negs or powers in this case....which certainly alters the conversation a bit).

To be complete, the difference is that the player with perfect knowledge is now able to buzz with absolute certainty no later than the player with less than perfect knowledge is able to marshall a plausible guess (unless, of course, one considers a buzz on "lyricist" likely; since there are perhaps half a dozen lyricists tossupable in high school quizbowl, this is a non-ideality in the question.) In other words, the first substantive clue is uniquely identifying.
Another difference is that your alternative scenario is only one of a number of possible outcomes of the question as originally rendered, whereas it is certain that someone who knows their stuff is going to know the answer to the new version of the question before someone with less knowledge.
To illustrate this, let's say, for example, that player A only know that "Embracable You" is by George and Ira Gershwin and had no idea what the question was talking about until that point whereas player B knows that "S'Wonderful" is by George and Ira Gershwin, was written in 1927 for An American in Paris, has a famous adaptation by Ella Fitzgerald and that player B has a similar depth of knowledge about the other songs. It is clear and obvious which of these two players knows more, but neither one can actually know the answer until "lyricist" is specified. In the old version of the question, therefore, the more knowledgeable player has no distinct advantage over the less since they can't know the answer sooner; they may be better equipped to guess, but then again, they may not since they're aware of the larger number of possible answers. This is not the case in the new version.

MaS

[zwtipp]

It does, however, disprove Zach's contention. Someone (incidentally, someone considered a pretty good player) thought "tense" was most likely, but the actual probability of that being the answer at the point where that player buzzed was zero. This is simply because that player didn't know the answer from the uniquely identifying clues and decided to hazard a guess; that's fine and so is the question. The actual issue, I think, is with questions that don't uniquely identify their answers; then and only then can one have an actual hose.

MaS

I might have been unclear. I think as long as there is a uniquely identifying clue at the beginning of the question, it is not a hose. The player isn't punished for knowing something, he is punished for not knowing something. He doesn't know that optative is a mood rather than a tense and that why he got the question wrong. For the Gershwin question, there is no uniquely identifiable clue at the beginning and it punishes the players for having knowledge of the first few clues.

[barnacles]

I disagree with this -- I think that on occasion it is perfectly fine (and even good) to write questions knowing that most people would buzz in with a particular incorrect answer.

I don't think it's ever a good idea to try and mislead players. Perhaps that's just my philosophy, but as a player and question writer I think it's unreasonable and unfair to throw in a misleading question amidst other questions that are straightforward. It's been my experience something like that can mess up a player's rythym tremendously.

So far the only thing we've differentiated are players with "perfect" and "casual" knowledge, but there's an infinite spectrum of degree to which a player can know an answer. Take, for example, the Gershwin question: what if someone else knew that S'Wonderful, The Man I Love, and Embracable You were Gershwin tunes and negged with George. That would allow someone on the other team, who had never heard of any of those songs but knew that George Gershwin had a brother named Ira who wrote lyrics for him, to get points with less knowledge of the subject.

While this isn't entirely applicable with your question because it's reasonably well-written, I just don't believe it's a good idea to mislead players even with a uniquely identifying clue. If the uniquely identifying clue is too obscure or inconsequential, it could go over the player who has imperfect but substantial knowledge of the subject and lead them to neg while someone who can guess after a bumper clue would get the points. I think you can reward those with perfect knowledge without penalizing those who have imperfect but substantial knowledge in favor of someone with only marginal knowledge.

I'm not saying your question does this, the mention of optative, admirative and generic clearly eliminate tense as an answer. I do disagree with your premise, however, if your point was to try and trick someone into guessing tense. I think this happens much more often in history or literature where you could describe a situation unique to one answer while heavily alluding to another answer (i.e. describing Trimalchio using clues that could easily be applicable to Gatsby, etc).

Anyway, this is a pretty minor point, but I thought I'd bring it up.

[zwtipp]

While this isn't entirely applicable with your question because it's reasonably well-written, I just don't believe it's a good idea to mislead players even with a uniquely identifying clue. If the uniquely identifying clue is too obscure or inconsequential, it could go over the player who has imperfect but substantial knowledge of the subject and lead them to neg while someone who can guess after a bumper clue would get the points. I think you can reward those with perfect knowledge without penalizing those who have imperfect but substantial knowledge in favor of someone with only marginal knowledge.

Well, the player is punished with a neg for not knowing optative rather than knowing the other terms.

[barnacles]

Well, the player is punished with a neg for not knowing optative rather than knowing the other terms.

Let me begin by restating that I don't think this was a bad or unfair question. The only thing I'm debating is whether or not it is a good idea to mislead players in an attempt to bait them to another answer, which I don't, especially in high school tournaments where most questions are straightfowardly obvious anyway.

[Captain Sinico]

I agree; clues should be written such that each specifies as few answers as possible. As I've said "The whole point of later clues is that I didn't know the earlier ones" so, while it's absolutely essential that the question uniquely identify its answer as soon as possible, it's also crucial that later clues stand on their own merits. Also, the point of clues should never be to trick someone who knows things into buzzing with a wrong answer else; that's just asinine.
However, I don't think the Gershwin question (or the mood question, incidentally) do that. To take the example you've put forth, someone who "knows those are Gershwin tunes" doesn't know all that much. If the question makes it immediately clear that it wants the lyricist (which the revised version does), someone who only knows "those are Gershwin tunes" should also know they don't know the answer and shouldn't be buzzing unless they want to guess. And, incidentally, in this case, since the answer's Ira Gershwin, someone who knows of him knows more, in the context of the question, than someone who only knows a bunch of stuff by his brother. Therefore, I have no problem at all with the realistic scenario you've posed as resulting from the question, because what happened is that someone who had less knowledge of the answer buzzed, guessed, and was wrong and this allowed someone with more knowledge of the answer to get the question. That seems completely just to me.

MaS

[barnacles]

Ahh, I wasn't being specific enough, I was considering the original question and assuming that anyone who knows enough about George Gershwin to be able to recall particular songs (other than his major works) should know that he had a brother named Ira who wrote the lyrics for his songs, and that may not be the cace.

I agree, if the person who negged only knew George Gershwin and buzzed on that, then he deserved the neg. I just figured that the vast majority of quizbowlers who could name Gershwin tunes, such as the player who negged early with George, would know about Ira. But maybe that's incorrect.

[Skepticism and Animal Feed]

I agree, if the person who negged only knew George Gershwin and buzzed on that, then he deserved the neg. I just figured that the vast majority of quizbowlers who could name Gershwin tunes, such as the player who negged early with George, would know about Ira. But maybe that's incorrect.

The issue is they would have no way to tell which was being asked about.

[zwtipp]

I agree, if the person who negged only knew George Gershwin and buzzed on that, then he deserved the neg. I just figured that the vast majority of quizbowlers who could name Gershwin tunes, such as the player who negged early with George, would know about Ira. But maybe that's incorrect.

The issue is they would have no way to tell which was being asked about.

And most players would probably guess George since he comes up more often

[barnacles]

The issue is they would have no way to tell which was being asked about.

Right, I know, and I am somewhat off the main topic here, I was just responding to leapfrog314's assertion that "on occasion it is perfectly fine (and even good) to write questions knowing that most people would buzz in with a particular incorrect answer."

I'll restate again that I don't think either of these questions really does that, and that perhaps I chose poor examples to try and prove my point. The Gershwin question would be perfectly fine if it started with "This lyricist" (and perhaps included more pyramidal clues, but I guess that's the format of the tournament) and the mood question is fine as is. I just think that question writers shouldn't try and write to bait a neg on players who have substantial but imperfect knowledge.

What I'm mostly saying is that the perfect pyramidal question should try and give the most points to those with the most knowledge and the least chance to those with the least knowledge. If the question writer thinks there's a good chance someone with substantial but imperfect knowledge is likely to neg on a given question, it isn't an ideal question and hopefully would be rewritten instead of being left as is to teach them a lesson or something like that. Incidentally, I don't think either of the questions presented here are a good example of that (and probably shouldn't have used them to try and illustrate a point) but I just took exception to leapfrog's assertion that "on occasion it is perfectly fine (and even good) to write questions knowing that most people would buzz in with a particular incorrect answer." If, in one's estimation, many players who know a fair deal about the subject would be willing to intelligently guess a particular answer (based on the difficulty of the tournament) then it's not a good question. I don't think that's the case with this question, but I have seen it before, and just thought I'd address it.

[rchschem]

Isn't it also true that buzzing early does require the buzzer to take some risk? If you're sure of the answer, then there's no problem unless the question is deliberately misleading. I don't think this question is. I think it asks a legitimate question and doesn't give a listener a nudge either way when the songs are listed. If the information early on is not clearly leading you to an answer, then hold off on buzzing.

Seems to me we had a discussion sometime last year about a "famous Danish astronomer" and some poster snarkily commenting that the answer to this clue was always Brahe. If there was a question that started with this clue but ended with, say, Ole Roehmer, would it be hosing if the person buzzed in at Danish astronomer?

Hosing to me seems like an instance where the question takes a 90 degree turn away from its normal flow, like "...an opera featuring a tuberculosis-stricken heroine...etc." but then it asks for the name of an opera house or something else not really related to the bulk of the rest of the question. Frequently done just to screw players.

My $.02 here would be that the original question could have been worded better but isn't a hose.

Eric

[Matt Weiner]

Isn't it also true that buzzing early does require the buzzer to take some risk?

The risk ought to be the chance that your knowledge is flawed, not the chance that your psychic connection with the question writer, which is necessary to answer the above tossup, is.

[Tegan]

First off, thanks for the well thought out arguments here. It has given me something to cogitate about.

I think this also has uncovered a very interesting debate about hte philosophy of the activity (from question writing to how "things should go" in a match).

I read about rhythm, and in a few entries the need for consistency in question writing. I have also heard a number of people say that this is either unimportant, or a wanted feature in a match (I'm assuming this can apply as much to written questions as moderators).

As for pyramidality, I agree. This question would be a poor, true pyramid question, and was written for a shorter "lightning round" type situation (my pyramid questions wre substantially longer, and included more clues). But this also showed that there are a number of players who, while liking the pyramid style, want one of the lead clues to be a direct indicator of the answer (ie. "Name the lyricist"). Others pointed out (and this was my intent), that you can have a pyramid like question, moving from more general to more specific clues) without necessarily being as precise with the opening clue, and that this is OK (I'm restating what others have said..I'm not arriving at a grand judgement).

Certainly, avoiding questions which start "In this novel", and end "Name the author" are way out of line. I hope that can be agreed upon.

The grand judgement is that there is a difference of philosophy here, and I'm not sure that one way or the other is necessarily the way to go.

But it has given me a pause for thought.

For those celebrating, have a Happy New Year.

[Skepticism and Animal Feed]

Others pointed out (and this was my intent), that you can have a pyramid like question, moving from more general to more specific clues) without necessarily being as precise with the opening clue, and that this is OK

This is not incompatible with uniquely identifying information.

Surely, there are projects that Ira worked on that George didn't? Life experiences he had that his brother didn't? Other things like that? Find something obscure but relevant that Ira did and Geroge didn't, and stick that at the front.

[Captain Sinico]

Again, it's not as though the "difference in philosophy" is just that and that's okay. It continues to be that case that one way of writing questions is demonstrably inferior to the other, assuming that you want to reward the most knowledgeable player. This is so because, as I've established, writing questions without uniquely identifying clues is a practice that does not reward knowledge or speed or really anything other than luck. As I posited that some time ago and nobody disagreed aloud, I've assumed it is understood and accepted; if it's not, then we can talk about that some more.
However, if we understand and accept that writing questions without uniquely identifying clues rewards luck first and foremost and a difference remains, then the difference must be in our views about the acceptability of that practice in light of that fact. That is to say, we then differ on whether questions should primarily reward knowledge or luck. I say that the first view is right but, if we differ here, there is a fundamental difference that is a matter of choice; there is, in other words, no simple way to argue the opposing view away.
However, as this choice affects more than just ourselves (it affects those subjected to our questions, that is), we're obliged to understand and explore its ramifications. Since the whole impetus for this thing was someone complaining that they were hosed, I can only assume that at least part of your audience wants knowledge-based questions. I know I’ve seen an increasing segment of high school players wanting knowledge-based questions. I also know those are what I like to play on, and that everyone whose opinion I've respected on the matter has agreed with me on that. If you think luck and restraint have their place in the game, I can't disagree; I just wonder if their place is to be so deciding a factor as questions like this one make them. I think, rather, that luck should come into play, as Matt said, as "the chance that your knowledge is flawed, not the chance that your psychic connection with the question writer... is" and I further think that whomever you're writing for probably agrees with me.

Not agreeing to disagree in the least,
MaS

[rchschem]

But the player here buzzed after the end of reading of two song titles. He may be knowledgeable about a lot with respect to those song titles. My point is that in this case, even if you happen to be Ira Gershwin's biographer, that there are a lot of directions in which the rest of the question can go legitimately. The question then becomes a matter of hair-splitting as to where that definite identifier must come. Starting a question by asking "He..." gives enough information to rule out half of humanity, but is it the writer's fault if the player jumps in early and guesses wrong?

I am in complete agreement that questions should reward knowledge, but the point of having powers and negs is to make players consider whether or not they really know what they think they know, not just about the topic but about what the question is asking. I hate the creator/created rule, too. What about jumping in and yelling "Melville's Moby Dick" makes you smarter than someone else who waits until a precise answer can be given (unless he doesn't know those two items or that they are related in that way)? It's the gambling instinct. No doubt it makes the game more fun but it comes with a price.

Dare I say it? "With great powers come great responsibility?" :)

Eric

[popculture]

This discussion has brought up some key points about question styles (so it is probably more of a theory thread than a misc.). Here's my take:
MaS's take that this is an essentially an issue of luck vs. knowledge-based questions (of which knowledge is unarguably superior) is right, but does not encapsulate the entire issue. In order to get Ira Gerschwin at the time of the buzz, luck would have been required. But the luck wouldn't neccessarily have come from the way the question was set up, but from the time of the buzz. Buzzing in early often requires luck, even if the question is uniquely identified (as is my personal preference). Real life example:
This writer wrote 145 (made up number) novels and... Buzz. Agatha Christie. Correct.
It is unlikely the player knew the exact number of Christie novels, more likely he knew she wrote a ton, and got lucky.

A point that has not been brought up is that there is another type of (annoying) questions present in non-NAQT. I call it filtration-pyramidal, pyramidal's ugly little brother. Example of clue progression in f-p style:

19th century writer... Wrote about nature... American...famous for his essays...wrote "routine is the hobgoblin of small minds"... author of Self Reliance.

It is easy to see the (inverted) pyramid. The number of possible answers goes from hundreds to dozens to a dozen to two (maybe more) to one to one. You can say it rewards luck because in order to answer early, you'd have to be lucky, but a smart player will always have the advantage, because the odds will never be in the favor of the too-early buzzer. Having the knowledge of Thoreau and, earlier, William Cullen Bryant et al. would be an advantage. Fools rush in where [good qb players] fear to tread.

Though the merits of filtration-pyramidal questions are questionable, an aware quizbowl player should know when he is hearing one. George Gerschwin isn't the only one associated with those two works, and an alert (and fully knowledgeable) would have waited until "lyricist," the identifying clue.
To answer the original question:
Hosed: In the sense that few, esp. F/S level, hear "The Man I Love" and think "Ira Gerschwin wrote the lyrics to that"
Not Hosed: A player with 100% knowledge of the situation would wait until "lyricist" before filtering out Ira from the two Gerschwins.

[Stained Diviner]

If a question starts out, "Some years ago--never mind how long precisely--having little or no money in my purse, and nothing particular to interest me on shore...", then a student should ring in and say Moby-Dick by Melville, and that student should receive 10 or 15 points for doing so. The question is perfectly legitimate as long as the answer is Moby-Dick, but the student can say Melville to cover him/herself, since the student cannot be 100% certain that the answer is Moby-Dick. The student is demonstrating some knowledge of the book, which is why that student's team should get points. The question writer may choose to avoid saying "Name the novel" to make the question harder to power as long as it is a case such as this where the novel is the most obvious thing to guess.

Of course, the answer could be Ishmael, but I would hope not. In that case, it would be better for the question to start out by asking what character states the sentence. The answer could also be Nathaniel Hawthorne, 1851, Loomings, Ahab, Pequod, or a hundred other things, but those would really be curveballs. The whole point of having a pyramid question is that a student could buzz in at almost any time with the correct answer.

(NOTE: This is the beginning of the second sentence in the book. The first sentence should be used only as a giveaway.)

[Stained Diviner]

popculture is absolutely correct. High school writers in particular have to be careful not to ask people to name the Polish astronomer, Norwegian composer, journalism award, and other such things early in the question. Doing so rewards ignorance rather than knowledge. (There's only one that I've heard of, so that must be it.)

It's also a bad idea to start out by making it clear that you are asking for a current New York Senator or moon of Mars because there is a high likelihood that somebody will just make a guess.

(Of course, now that I am talking about all the things high school writers shouldn't do, I am sure that somebody will dredge up my worst questions. I must point out that, even though I don't like the Gershwin question, if it was the worst one at Mr. Egan's tournament, then it was a darn good tournament.)

[Captain Sinico]

So, again, what I see is people saying how questions that don't uniquely specify their answer reward luck instead of knowledge (that, if you happen to buzz at the right time, you'll be able to answer; that you can guess the most probable answer; etc.) Saying "buzzing in early often requires luck" is begging the question because the precise issue at hand is whether questions should uniquely specify their answers as soon as possible. If they do, then luck is not required if you know the answer; if they don't, then the outcome is determined entirely by luck irregardless of how much you know. In short, a normative analysis is being applied where a positive one is called for. This isn't about what questions are, it's about what they should be; we know what questions are: too often, "unacceptable." I contend that they should be vehicles for rewarding the player with the best, fastest knowledge of whatever they happen to be on.
Further, as I've said, whether someone waits until a question uniquely specifies its answer to buzz or not depends on the strategy they pursue. If a player knows that a certain clue will dictate a certain answer 90% of the time (pick whichever you like: "Danish astronomer," "Dutch-Jewish lensgrinder's son," "Norwegian playwright," etc.), it's obvious that the optimal strategy in most cases is to buzz off that clue right away and not wait until an answer is uniquely identified; every player who has any experience on bad questions knows that. Thus, the objection that "if the player were really so smart, they would have waited" is seen to be a red herring. The simple fact is, far too often it would be poor strategy to wait; we all know this. What I contend is that this shouldn't be the case; the game shouldn't penalize the knowledgeable by making them wait and sift through all the answers they know are possible ("This is probably Ibsen, but what if it's Nielsen? What if it's Andersen?!") while others buzz with the one answer they know.
What I do not see is anyone either attempting to say the questions of this sort don't reward luck before knowledge or why rewarding luck before knowledge is acceptable. To me, it's clear that they reward luck and it's further clear that this is unacceptable. If we all agree on these points, there's not much more to say, but rather something to do; namely, to stop writing questions of this kind and to request that others do so as well.

MaS

[zwtipp]

I think luck comes in more in the cases of which the player does not know who or what the information identifies and based on what they hear realize the information could, based on what they already know about a person, very well be true. In this case, the person has used the knowledge they possess to know that the clues they've heard may be applicable to whatever person or thing you were thinking of.

Say someone knows that Stonewall Jackson was a teacher, but didn't know where he taught and they hear something in the question about Virginia Military Institute. Knowing that Jackson was a teacher and a military man, they could hazard a guess that it was Jackson.

I think questions should not quickly narrow the possible answers and wait till the very end of the question to add that final identifier.

What is needed is something that can uniquely identify the person without giving it totally away. A pair of clues I think works best to make sure early on that the question that only one answer is possible without being obvious.

"S'Wonderful", ""Long Ago (And Far Away)", "The Man I Love", and "Embracable You" had lyrics written by which lyricist; the brother of a famous composer.

The first clue narrows it to the Gershwins (I would do it with a one of their lesser known songs and I don't know whether that's true in this situation) and the second narrows it to Ira since it was written after George's death.

[rchschem]

Further, as I've said, whether someone waits until a question uniquely specifies its answer to buzz or not depends on the strategy they pursue. If a player knows that a certain clue will dictate a certain answer 90% of the time (pick whichever you like: "Danish astronomer," "Dutch-Jewish lensgrinder's son," "Norwegian playwright," etc.), it's obvious that the optimal strategy in most cases is to buzz off that clue right away....

MaS

That sounds like taking a risk to me, which is my point.

1. Questions should be written so that knowledge is rewarded. This means that, like I tell my players when writing questions, the first thing you write is the indicator of what the answer will be and the next thing is a unique fact about that person. No "Elizibethan dramatist" or "seafaring novel" clues.

2. This one wasn't, unfortunately. It gave some information but that information was not sufficient, after the second "clue" to determine the answer.

3. Sometimes, people write questions like these. A player's Spidey sense should be telling him that though he knows a buttload of Gershwin, he doesn't know what's being asked. The player gets to make a decision-go with what I think/hope will be the answer I'm pretty sure they're looking for to get the drop on the other team, or wait until I'm sure. Of course, the other team might not wait. This is the essential tension.

4. This game rewards knowledge, but it also rewards speed, and sometimes speed necessitates luck. It shouldn't; all good players should be knowledgeable and fast, but they aren't. Sometimes they are and they still want the extra half-second on the other team and so the "guess" (buzz early, etc). Call it what you want, but it's luck when you jump the gun and get it right.

5. The question isn't a hose, therefore, because it did not intentionally mislead the player; the player chose to go on limited information. That's my feeling.

6. Re: creator/created. Someone can correct this, but my guess is that the rule was implemented for the purposes of speed (see #4), that is, players said "Hey--I know it's going to be Melville's Moby Dick; why can't I just give both pieces of information as a hedge?" My answer is, why not vomit up everything you know about Moby Dick at the first intimation that it's the subject of the question in the hope that you will hit the answer somewhere? It definitely rewards your knowledge of the novel. I would presume it's because someone thought that judgement was also a factor in making quiz bowl competition interesting. So as I said, if you write questions that require a player to make a judgement, then you invite the risk that bad judgement might trump vast knowledge. Probably not the best system, but it's the one we have.

I agree with MaS that we should write questions that are answerable by knowledge alone. I also suggest to any of you writing questions out there that you read them over with some good players for playability before trying to use them. I am frequently surprised by the landmines I find in what I thought were darn good questions.

Eric

[Tegan]

3. Sometimes, people write questions like these. A player's Spidey sense should be telling him that though he knows a buttload of Gershwin, he doesn't know what's being asked. The player gets to make a decision-go with what I think/hope will be the answer I'm pretty sure they're looking for to get the drop on the other team, or wait until I'm sure. Of course, the other team might not wait. This is the essential tension.
4. This game rewards knowledge, <sic> Call it what you want, but it's luck when you jump the gun and get it right.

If I'm reading this right, that is to say there are three components of a good player:
1. Knowledge
2a. Speed
2b. Confidence

If knowledge is strictly, or nearly all this competition is about (as some have contended), then I contend that we should put away the buzzers and hand out 500 question tests that truly test knowledge (vs 20-30 questions). To take it further, we might just as well show up to a room, and permit teams to honorably forfeit if they know that their team is not as knowledgable as the other team for whatever reason (ACT scores, previous match results, college acceptance, etc). I say this facetiously, but if knowledge is all this is about, I contend that this is akin to saying baseball is all about power hitting, or golf is all about who can hit the ball farther. Every great competition is about honing multiple skills....never just strength or just speed or just knowledge (even the 100 meter dash is nearly as much about the skill of getting a great jump from the blocks as it is raw speed) . Even chess goes beyond this (there are elements of strategy, knowledge of an opponent, knowledge of various startegies, and even speed in some cases....and even the great chess players need to be able to change their strategy if things don't go as expected).

IMO, speed and confidence have a factor to play in our competition. I would agree that it is a silly question that starts "This Norwegian playwright...." and a knowledgable player is cycling through Norwegian playwrights, while the less knowledgable player doees what (s)he has been instructed to do and slam the buzzer and yell "Ibsen". To me that is putting the "give away" first, and that's poor. On the other hand, if you are at a tournament where each and every question up to this point has been simple, and this is toss-up #100, and the knowledgable player thinks this could be anyone beyond Ibsen, then I contend this player has no grounds for complaint other than at themself....make the adjustment for this game......or avoid such matches in the future.

However, just because you "know" the answer, doesn't mean that you have the guts to hit the buzzer so soon...this could be for a variety of reasons (such as "this answer could go one of a few different ways...I need more information...which is often the case in early pyramid clues......or it could be that you really do know the answer, and have internal doubt to hit the button). Doubt, of course affects speed (perhaps it is the #1 affector of speed?).

I've always felt that a part of preparation (at least at the high school level) is to know something about the styles that will be asked (just like hitters preparing for a pitcher's repertoire in baseball). There are certain tournaments where the questions are short, and the answers will always be "the most obvious". Other tournaments have more complex questions, and players are advised to wait. To me, this is as much a part of preparation as reading books, reviewing maps, studying lists, etc. Teams who fail to prepare are potentially at a disadvantage, just like the hitter who fails to study the pitcher.

In addition, we study opponents. If we are about to play an opponent who has superior lit. players, but are poor at math, I tell my lit people to prepare to take far greater risk, and to not get down if they happen to be wrong. I tell my math people to take extra time, and make sure they get it right. I see this as a fundamental part of the game as well.

Certainly, these nuances to the game are frustrating to the most knowledgable players....just like when a Hall-of-Fame pitcher who likes to pitch on the inside corner doesn't get the close calls from the umpire on a particular day. You could complain, or you could adjust...meaning you might need to wait longer.....you might need to jump quicker.

To apply this to my Gershwin question (for the record, not typical of about 90% of the questions I write):
A. I could have ended the question with "Who was the composer? This, (IMO) would make the question a hose, because the great player would have been thinking "Ira or George?" while the less knowledgable player answers "George" because that's all they know. I do not know if the young lady who incorrectly answered this question knew anything about Ira Gershwin, or was upset because she was thinking (incorrectly) that there was a 100% chance this would end as "George", took a chance, and got burned.
B. I had plenty of other questions which tested straight up knowledge in the round. The intent of this question was to have a question which tested depth of knowledge, and punishing a player with less knowledge or overconfidence who happened to think they knew enough about the question. The player thinking "Ira or George?" got rewarded for thinking because the other player already rang in, and eliminated the wrong answer. This is precisely why I didn't start this question with some explicit identifier (which is how I start many questions).
Upon review of the many statements here, I do see the points brought up that if you had two players with equal, nonzero knowledge of the subject, then at the point the word "lyricist" is given, it becomes a classic buzzer race....but would'nt this also be true of any instance with two players with equal, nonzero levels of knowledge on a particular subject?
C. This question is also a confidence testing question. A great player knows that there are two possible answers here, and they could choose to hit the button and flip the coin (or possibly take the creator/creation route and cover their bases). If they guess wrong, then the player has learned that in certain situations they need to have more restraint or be willing to cover their bases.
D. This was written for a frosh-soph match, and while I have seen disagreement as to whether "Ira Gershwin" is appropriate for the frosh-soph cannon, IMO, he's fair game. When I write frosh-soph questions, I try to include more questions of this nature because I feel that part of a younger player's training is to hear various question types and start learning to gague levels of confidence questions like this are a small part, but not zero. In addition, I would bet if this player in fact knew little or nothing about Ira Gershwin, and they are a worthy player, they have already concluded research about George and Ira, and can readily tell you what they have in common, as well as how they can be differentiated.

Again, thanks to all of the contributors for giving me a great deal to think about.

[ProsperoSMS]

I'm quite late coming to this thread, but I personally see nothing wrong with lists making parts of toss ups. The standard inverted pyramid becomes clearer clue by clue, which means the more veteran players will get these earlier either from superior depth of knowledge or a familiarity with certain clues. However, I think there's something to be said for a list of related clues, which require the listener to connect the dots with each component. The "problem" is that players do not necessarily have the ability to take this one on the second part of the list, but I don't see that as horrible. If the question remains unanswerable throughout the entire question, I see a problem, but I see nothing wrong with creating a puzzle. Honestly, this isn't much different from a "Give the common year" tossup (a staple of ACF when I was on that circuit), and I see nothing wrong with having high school students learn the style.

The question that started this thread was not immediately clear, but I don't know that there's any crime in that. I agree with Eric that buzzing means a risk, which is the chance taken. I don't find this to be a hose.

Hugh

[zwtipp]

I'm quite late coming to this thread, but I personally see nothing wrong with lists making parts of toss ups. The standard inverted pyramid becomes clearer clue by clue, which means the more veteran players will get these earlier either from superior depth of knowledge or a familiarity with certain clues. However, I think there's something to be said for a list of related clues, which require the listener to connect the dots with each component. The "problem" is that players do not necessarily have the ability to take this one on the second part of the list, but I don't see that as horrible. If the question remains unanswerable throughout the entire question, I see a problem, but I see nothing wrong with creating a puzzle. Honestly, this isn't much different from a "Give the common year" tossup (a staple of ACF when I was on that circuit), and I see nothing wrong with having high school students learn the style.

The question that started this thread was not immediately clear, but I don't know that there's any crime in that. I agree with Eric that buzzing means a risk, which is the chance taken. I don't find this to be a hose.

Hugh

This is very different from the "Give the common year" tossup since that tossup narrows to one answer on the very first clue. This tossup narrows to two answers on the very first clue, but doesn't differentiate until the very end. All the while, the player is agonizing whether or not to take the risk of buzzing in or waiting until they hear the final clue.

The question is not an intentional hose, but it is a hose nonetheless.

[Ben Dillon]

Quick note: not all "give the common year" questions uniquely identify off the first clue, just the vast majority.

Example first clue: "The Treaty of Paris is signed"

Or would this be a classic hose?

[barnacles]

You could complain, or you could adjust...meaning you might need to wait longer.....you might need to jump quicker.

The problem is, when you throw these questions in every so often, there is no strategy except waiting, which hurts you in straightforward questions. Consider a question that started out "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, The Abduction from the Seraglio, and the Jupiter Symphony . . ." If the question was straightforward, the answer would have to be Mozart, but what if the rest of the question went, "were all catalogued by what man whose 'K numbers' denote specific Mozart works?"

I just know that, as a player, trying to determine average answer difficulty is difficult enough to do on straightforward questions, but when you throw in questions in which the most obvious answer throughout the question is wrong, it can mess with your head, leading a player who knows what the question is asking to either buzz in too early or wait until an easy clue. Especially if question was designed for speed in a lightning round, I can hardly see how you can expect players to wait if these questions are supposed to reward speed.

I think players use luck and speed all the time on good pyramidal questions. In fact, long questions with more pyramidality are designed just for the "honing of multiple skills," allowing players to sift through answers based on the various clues being given. The only point is that players who know have the greatest depth of true knowledge should have first crack at the question.

[quizbowllee]

I've read this whole thread and tried to stay out of it... But I have to speak up now.

A few questions, first.

1) Would you prompt on an answer of "Gershwin" early?
2) Would you accept a blitz of George and Ira Gershwin early?


If this were a question that I was writing (or if I ordered questions and were editting them), I would "fix" the problem like so:

"S'Wonderful", "The Man I Love", and "Embracable You" had * lyrics written by which lyricist; the brother of a famous composer.

Answer: Ira Gershwin (accept George Gershwin or just Gershwin before *)

This fixes all problems. It could potentially award the "confident" player who buzzed in and took a shot. However, if a more "knowledgeable" player felt inclined to wait until "lyricist," then he/she would also get points (assuming that the other team didn't get it faster).

Personally, if one of my players let this tossup get to the word "lyricist," I'd be having words with them. Furthermore, I would expect them to buzz in and say "Gershwin" nothing more, nothing less. If prompted, I would expect them to say "George." Why? Because before the word "lyricist," that is the correct answer (or rather "a" correct answer).

Would this strategy fly in Alabama? No. This is exactly the kind of question that we typically get an a standard Alabama invite. That's why my kids hate it. I assure that you will never get a question like that at a tournament I run. If you do, and you protest it, I would rule in favor of anyone who said "Gershwin" and/or "George Gershwin" before the word "lyricist."

I'm really surprised at how many people on this board are saying that this question is acceptable. It's clearly not.

Also, to Mr. Egan: You say that if the game is only about knowledge, why not just do a written test? That's simple: because that takes all the fun out of it. First and foremost, this game should be about testing knowledge. Period. But, the elements of luck, speed, and intuition play an important role. Hosing players doesn't help even the field, it just makes for bad quiz bowl.

You talked about a baseball team studying a pitcher's style. I understand that analogy. But what these questions do is equivalent to that pitcher winding up and throwing a soccer ball. And on the next pitch he throws a football. He mixes it up with hockey pucks, tennis balls, maybe the occasional tangerine... Every now and then he throws a baseball. The problem is, the batter - no matter how good he is - is having to wait for each individual pitch to see what is going to be thrown. Not much fun for the batter, huh? The problem is that fruit isn't a baseball. And a hose question isn't quiz bowl.

[Tegan]

I've read this whole thread and tried to stay out of it... But I have to speak up now.

A few questions, first.

1) Would you prompt on an answer of "Gershwin" early?
2) Would you accept a blitz of George and Ira Gershwin early?

In both cases, yes. Those are both the rules in our state, and I would hope the same everywhere (it has been the case in just about all of the varieties of quizbowl I have seen).

I'm really surprised at how many people on this board are saying that this question is acceptable. It's clearly not.

With all due respect, sir, I hope that you are qualifying that as an opinion. I asked my original question to get some thoughts on it, and from what I am seeing is that the responses are mixed.

Also, to Mr. Egan: You say that if the game is only about knowledge, why not just do a written test? That's simple: because that takes all the fun out of it. First and foremost, this game should be about testing knowledge. Period. But, the elements of luck, speed, and intuition play an important role. Hosing players doesn't help even the field, it just makes for bad quiz bowl.

I would agree completely (and I did say I was being facetious). I also agree that the primary test in quizbowl is one of knowledge, but as you said, it is not the only one. I had always thought of a hose question as one which completely misled a player (such starting "This novel", and ending "name the author"). I occasionally add questions which, IMO, require thought in addition to strict knowledge, and try to write them in such a way as to avoid the problem of giving a player with limited knowledge a chance to gain advantage (hence the reason I made it an "Ira" vs. a "George" as to which way a question might go, but avoid blatent hoses (as I described above).

You talked about a baseball team studying a pitcher's style. I understand that analogy. But what these questions do is equivalent to that pitcher winding up and throwing a soccer ball. And on the next pitch he throws a football. He mixes it up with hockey pucks, tennis balls, maybe the occasional tangerine... Every now and then he throws a baseball. The problem is, the batter - no matter how good he is - is having to wait for each individual pitch to see what is going to be thrown. Not much fun for the batter, huh?

I would choose to disagree with your extension of the analogy.....in this case, I would equate it to a pitcher who threw fastballs, and then an occasional change up or curve (perhaps one in every 20-30 pitches). Not fun for the batter? Quite true in that case when they swing and miss wide, though a careful batter might adjust their swing to meet the pitch (I've created a poor analogy perhaps, because the issue of timing is far faster in baseball).

I have to respond with a question.....you had mentioned that on this particular quesiton, you would have coached your player to ring in and say Gershwin (best coaching strategy on answering a name). When prompted, you would have advised a player to say "George" because at that point, it would have been a correct answer.

What if a question would have started (again, I am being facetious with the question, and I intend no disrespect): "This African nation, starting with the letter "E", is home to some of the earliest pyramids......."

A player could ring in and say "Egypt", but it could just as easily be Ethiopia. Certainly, a question that started like this couldn't really be argued as a hose, could it?...even though up to that point of the question, Egypt might have been described?

And just for the record: the "Gershwin" question noted above is not a question I would write to "level the field". I'm not in favor of leveling fields, unless that is to raise them. I am no advocate for "buzzer racing" questions. I have all but removed miscellaneous and pop culture/sports (I like some of those topics, but I'm getting far too turned off in seeing them decide matches).

I'm not trying to be combative or contrary. I'm just trying to learn.

[Matt Weiner]

I would choose to disagree with your extension of the analogy.....in this case, I would equate it to a pitcher who threw fastballs, and then an occasional change up or curve (perhaps one in every 20-30 pitches). Not fun for the batter? Quite true in that case when they swing and miss wide, though a careful batter might adjust their swing to meet the pitch (I've created a poor analogy perhaps, because the issue of timing is far faster in baseball).

The purpose of the question writer is not to fool or defeat the player. That's what you're implying by comparing him to a pitcher in baseball, and that's what's at the root of all bad questions written by those who should know better: an erroneous belief that being "clever" in questions is either possible or warranted.

What, exactly, is lost by ruling out George Gershwin as an answer early in the question? Nothing but what some people would subjectively call the "excitement" of seeing someone answer the question incorrectly. Being that there's no reason not to do it, the many valid arguments for doing it automatically win.

[quizbowllee]

Mr. Egan,

Thanks for your response. I will try to reply to all of your statements:

PostPosted: Sun Jan 01, 2006 12:36 pm Post subject:
quizbowllee wrote:
I've read this whole thread and tried to stay out of it... But I have to speak up now.

A few questions, first.

1) Would you prompt on an answer of "Gershwin" early?
2) Would you accept a blitz of George and Ira Gershwin early?


In both cases, yes. Those are both the rules in our state, and I would hope the same everywhere (it has been the case in just about all of the varieties of quizbowl I have seen).

SIGH. Unfortunately, those are NOT the rules in our state. This is a huge bone of contention with me. Blitzing is absolutely not allowed in Alabama - except at tournaments that are run by me. A handful of tournaments held at local community colleges allow it, but for the most part, it's not allowed. This adds to my hatred of hoses, because my players can't even cover their rears by giving book and author.

Quote:

I'm really surprised at how many people on this board are saying that this question is acceptable. It's clearly not.


With all due respect, sir, I hope that you are qualifying that as an opinion. I asked my original question to get some thoughts on it, and from what I am seeing is that the responses are mixed.

Of course this is my opinion. I take for granted sometimes that people understand that anything I say is my opinion. I will go as far, though, as to say that it is a very strong opinion. Personally, I would have a big problem with that tossup for all of the reasons that have already been mentioned on this board. I would have an even bigger problem if a question like that cost my team a match.

I would choose to disagree with your extension of the analogy.....in this case, I would equate it to a pitcher who threw fastballs, and then an occasional change up or curve (perhaps one in every 20-30 pitches). Not fun for the batter? Quite true in that case when they swing and miss wide, though a careful batter might adjust their swing to meet the pitch (I've created a poor analogy perhaps, because the issue of timing is far faster in baseball).

I will respectfully also disagree. I've seen my team go to a few tournaments this year where one tossup might be a completely pyramidal tossup of 4-5 sentences. The next tossup spends the first 3 sentences describing a book and suddenly asks for the author. The next tossup is simply "Name the capital of whatever." The next is a really short hose question a la "The Idiot was a famous work by a Russian author named Fyodor Dostoyevsky. Name Dostoyevsky's fellow Russian who penned Crime and Punishment."

The point is that the kids could never get a grip on the questions. They would buzz in fast on some and miss them because of the hoses. They would wait too long on the straight-forward questions, etc. IE - they didn't know if the question was a real baseball or if it was a lemon.

Obviously, I'm sure that this situation doesn't occur to this extreme in Illinois. However, you said that MOST of your questions were NOT like this particular Gershwin one. Throwing that one in when most are pyramidal is kind of like throwing a wrench into a gear. At least, that's the way it would be with my team (of course, this is a weakness that my team needs to overcome, but one that I don't think they SHOULD have to deal with).

What if a question would have started (again, I am being facetious with the question, and I intend no disrespect): "This African nation, starting with the letter "E", is home to some of the earliest pyramids......."

A player could ring in and say "Egypt", but it could just as easily be Ethiopia. Certainly, a question that started like this couldn't really be argued as a hose, could it?...even though up to that point of the question, Egypt might have been described?

Obviously this is an extreme example. However, if I were the writer (or editor) and I chose to keep this question (which I wouldn't ), I would put a caveat to accept either Egypt or Ethiopia at that point.

I don't know, Mr. Egan, if you ever PLAYED this game or if your experience comes just from coaching (which is fine). However, I did play. Therefore, when I'm writing a tossup I always ask myself when would I have buzzed? What would I have said at that point? Did I do enough to clarify what the question was asking for? Would I want to be a player in a close match and hear this question? I then adjust the question (or the acceptable answers) accordingly. I try not to use initial clues that can refer specifically to more than one answer (which both your Gershwin tunes and your Ethiopia/Egypt examples do). If ever I do use such clues, I make sure to say something along the lines of "accept Egypt before Addis Ababa is mentioned."

The problem with this is that (again an extreme example), one could write a tossup that begins "This man..." and a player could buzz in and say the name of ANY man and be ruled correct at that point. That's ridculous, so I pretty much say that at least one significant clue has to have been given before my "correct at that point" rule goes into effect.

Anyway, this has turned into a monster of a post that I typed very, very fast. I did want to point out that I'm looking at this as an amicable discussion/debate of philosophies and mean (nor meant) any disrespect to anyone, least of all Mr. Egan, who I know to be a great advocate and asset to the game. We actually met at PACE this past summer and I enjoyed hearing about all that you have done for the game.

[Tegan]

What, exactly, is lost by ruling out George Gershwin as an answer early in the question? Nothing but what some people would subjectively call the "excitement" of seeing someone answer the question incorrectly. Being that there's no reason not to do it, the many valid arguments for doing it automatically win.

I agree very strongly with two of your points:

1. There is nothing exciting about a player missing a question. I don't revel in it, even when that player is on the other team. Sure, I'm a bit relieved when my team can get a chance at it, but I would have prefered my team getting the question first. Ideally, a question is earned because one player has faster recall or a faster ability to reason out the answer, beating the other player to it.

2. The job of the question writer is not to fool a player (and as I stated that my earlier baseball analogy was flawed, you were absolutely correct in pointing out that my description of "change ups" and "curve balls" implies fooling or misleading the player. You are correct, and my analogy was quite flawed.

The point is not to trip up a player and certainly not to misdirect them, but to cause a different skill to be called upon....a deeper recollection of information rather than just jumping on the first name that comes to mind. I think this competition has room for at least partially testing this in such a way that it forces players to discriminate between possible answers, and that it is possible to write good questions that will do that (and I'm not saying that this question qualifies as "good"...if I was so sure, I would not have started the post and elicited opinions).

Pyramidal style is one way to do this, and it is a style which I use extensively in question writing. This type of quesiton I thought might possible be another way (shorter, fewer clues).

I get the feeling in what I am hearing from my learned colleagues here that I am not explaining myself very well....not because some (many?) of you are disagreeing with me, but because there seems to be a belief that in writing such a question I am doing so with the explicit intent of hamstringing stronger players and giving weaker players a chance to gain cheap points. That is not my intent in the least.

[Tegan]

SIGH. Unfortunately, those are NOT the rules in our state.<sic> This adds to my hatred of hoses, because my players can't even cover their rears by giving book and author.

That's a great shame, and I understand your feelings on the matter. We have only been permitted this for a few years in Illinois thanks to the dilligent work of some coaches who pushed hard at the state level. If it helps, I would be happy to send you a copy of our lowly rules and see if you can use it as a tool to push it through in Alabama.

I will respectfully also disagree. I've seen my team go to a few tournaments this year where one tossup might be a completely pyramidal tossup of 4-5 sentences. The next tossup spends the first 3 sentences describing a book and suddenly asks for the author. The next tossup is simply "Name the capital of whatever." The next is a really short hose question a la "The Idiot was a famous work by a Russian author named Fyodor Dostoyevsky. Name Dostoyevsky's fellow Russian who penned Crime and Punishment."

The point is that the kids could never get a grip on the questions. <sic>
Obviously, I'm sure that this situation doesn't occur to this extreme in Illinois. However, you said that MOST of your questions were NOT like this particular Gershwin one. Throwing that one in when most are pyramidal is kind of like throwing a wrench into a gear. At least, that's the way it would be with my team (of course, this is a weakness that my team needs to overcome, but one that I don't think they SHOULD have to deal with).

I see where you are coming from much more clearly now. While the overall quality of questions in Illinois is not what it could be, and not what it is in other states, the questions are, for the most part, consistent in terms of length/style throughout a particular tournament...the UIUC earlybird has beautifully crafted pyramids, and relatively easy bonuses. If you go to one particular tournament in Rockford, the tossups are very short, but the bonuses tend to be more difficult.

This year, I was experimenting with my new frosh-soph tournament. the first 12 toss-ups were relatively short, and had no bonus questions attached. There was then a written team bonus, and then 10 pyramidal toss-ups, all with possible bonuses. I fully agree that if I had thrown that Gershwin question in the middle of a round of otherwise normal pyramids, it would have been unexcusable.

What if a question would have started (again, I am being facetious with the question, and I intend no disrespect): "This African nation, starting with the letter "E", is home to some of the earliest pyramids......."

A player could ring in and say "Egypt", but it could just as easily be Ethiopia.

Obviously this is an extreme example. However, if I were the writer (or editor) and I chose to keep this question (which I wouldn't ), I would put a caveat to accept either Egypt or Ethiopia at that point.

A very extreme example! There may be more here than I originally had thought, and thank you for your insight. I think I am seeing that there exists not only different styles of questions, but some very different approaches to how various teams (states? regions?) approach playing.
I, personally, would have instructed my player to wait, and would have been upset for buzzing in so quickly when it should have been obvious that the question had at least two directions to go, and would have chalked it up to sheer luck if they had gotten the question correct here. It seems to me this may be more my personal approach. I do write questions where I will allow for very different alternatives up to a point, and it is usually because that word gets used later in the question.

I don't know, Mr. Egan, if you ever PLAYED this game or if your experience comes just from coaching (which is fine). However, I did play. Therefore, when I'm writing a tossup I always ask myself when would I have buzzed? What would I have said at that point? Did I do enough to clarify what the question was asking for? Would I want to be a player in a close match and hear this question? I then adjust the question (or the acceptable answers) accordingly. I try not to use initial clues that can refer specifically to more than one answer (which both your Gershwin tunes and your Ethiopia/Egypt examples do). If ever I do use such clues, I make sure to say something along the lines of "accept Egypt before Addis Ababa is mentioned."

I did not play in high school because my school did not have a team (I went back later and help start the team). I did play for a year and a fraction at the University of Illinois (I'm not name dropping, the team back then could not even stand in the shadow of the current team). Ironically, many of the hose questions that you describe in Alabama were commonplace "back in the day" in college (before NAQT). I got hosed a great many times on intentionally misleading questions. But there were times that I came in quick and was wrong, and relized later that I was wrong, because there were two potential directions the question could have gone, and I either never didn't know the other, or was taking too big a risk when I should not have. I guess maybe it was me, but I saw a distinction between questions which had no other purpose other than to strictly mislead a player, and a question which caused a player to pause and think, and, in essence, penalized the player who was taking a risk on a coin flip (I rarely saw a player invoke "creation/creator" back then), or was penalized because they really didn't know the information as deeply as they should have.

While I try my best, and can't claim 100% success, I do revise questions similar to you, though I don't use myself as the standard for when they buzz in, because that would (for me) ususally be the final clue.

The problem with this is that (again an extreme example), one could write a tossup that begins "This man..." and a player could buzz in and say the name of ANY man and be ruled correct at that point. That's ridculous, so I pretty much say that at least one significant clue has to have been given before my "correct at that point" rule goes into effect.

Being extreme and facetious, you wuold then not start a question with "This Italian artist" and except Michelangelo or DaVinci or Donatello, etc? This was an extreme example, and I understand your point. A good player would never do something as ludicrous as I have suggested. Nontheless, I have known a few unscrupulous coaches who would traing their players to have such reactions, if they knew it was possible to get away with it.

I did want to point out that I'm looking at this as an amicable discussion/debate of philosophies

Right back at you. Illinois gets a reputation as being a tad provincial (and there are certain coaches/teams who are), but I for one am trying to get a feel for the community as a whole. The whole point of my new format was to introduce some of our more closed minded teams to some new possibilities in formats that exist in the great beyond. I really mean it when I say that I appreciate the feed back (and apologize for the gargantuan posts).

[Stained Diviner]

Being extreme and facetious, you wuold then not start a question with "This Italian artist" and except Michelangelo or DaVinci or Donatello, etc?

It is fine for a question writer to narrow things down early to a category when there are several good options. The problem comes when there are only two or three choices (eg African countries that start with E) or when there are only one or two prominent choices (eg Norwegian playwrights). Such clues should only come at the ends of questions. There is nothing wrong in starting a question by stating that you are looking for an Italian artist. There is nothing wrong with the student who buzzes in on a question that starts out "Which moon of Mars...", but there is something wrong with the student who buzzes in on a question that starts out "Which person, born in India..." (That last example is based on a true story--a very smart kid in a very stupid moment.)

I have strong opinions on the subject--I feel no need for anything but pyramidal questions. (I also like some calculation questions, which do not need to be pyramidal.) If teams and moderators are not used to them, then a special effort can be made to keep them short and to the point--a good pyramid question often can be written using three lines of text (though eight lines of text are fine with me).

[quizbowllee]

... but there is something wrong with the student who buzzes in on a question that starts out "Which person, born in India..." (That last example is based on a true story--a very smart kid in a very stupid moment.)

So, who was it - Orwell or Kipling?

I'm just guessing that it was one of those two. There have been millions (quite possibly billions) of people born in India. However, I've noticed that in quiz bowl, if it is worth MENTIONING that they were born in India, it's one of these two. Am I correct?

[Stained Diviner]

I wasn't there. I heard that the student guessed Gandhi. The two people you mention would have been better guesses.