ACF Fall Discussion

Old college threads.
User avatar
Mr. Kwalter
Tidus
Posts: 617
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2003 1:48 am
Location: Houston, TX

ACF Fall Discussion

Post by Mr. Kwalter » Mon Nov 12, 2007 1:08 am

OK, let's hear it. What did you think of ACF Fall? I want to know what love is. I have some opinions of my own I'll post later, but for now I just want to get things started. There are some things that need touching up with the Fall set, so it will be a bit of time before it's posted in official form on the ACF website, but for now the set you played can be found at https://webspace.utexas.edu/egk55/www/A ... 202007.zip.
Eric Kwartler
Alumnus, University of Texas School of Law

User avatar
Skepticism and Animal Feed
Auron
Posts: 3170
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 11:47 pm
Location: Arlington, VA

Post by Skepticism and Animal Feed » Mon Nov 12, 2007 1:12 am

I have four complaints, question-wise, about the set. The fact that three of them have to do with the first line of a tossup and one of them has to do with the third part of a bonus show just how insignificant they are, and, as such, how decent I think the set was.
Bruce
Harvard '10 / UChicago '07 / Roycemore School '04
ACF Member emeritus
My guide to using Wikipedia as a question source

User avatar
cornfused
Auron
Posts: 2160
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 3:22 pm
Location: Des Moines, IA

Post by cornfused » Mon Nov 12, 2007 1:22 am

Nitpicky complaints later.

Why was the Andrew Hart packet (yes, I know he got heavily edited) so much easier than the others?
Specifically:
  • a Beethoven symphonies bonus that asks for 9, 3, and 5, giving singing as a clue for 9, heroic as a clue for 3 (and accepting Eroica,) and duh duh duh DUH for 5

    a Da Vinci bonus that asks for Da Vinci (from Virgin of the Rocks), Mona Lisa, and the Last Supper
and similar things the whole time. My team of freshman played a team of high schoolers and we nearly broke 600 combined points.
Last edited by cornfused on Mon Nov 12, 2007 1:40 am, edited 2 times in total.

MiltonPlayer47
Wakka
Posts: 123
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 7:14 pm
Location: Roswell, Georgia
Contact:

Post by MiltonPlayer47 » Mon Nov 12, 2007 1:27 am

My memory may be bad because it was a week ago, but overall I thought it was an excellent set of questions. I thought the question length and difficulty was right on target for most of the tournament.

There are few things I remember that I I'll mention:

1) I would have to look at the questions to confirm if this is true, but it seemed like there were more toss ups than usual on authors, composers, and artists, rather than works. This especially seemed to be true with composers. This doesn't bother me personally, and since this is meant to be a tournament for newer players it might be appropriate to do this, but it has always seemed to be a consensus among players that works are preferred over people, so this did surprise me.

2) There were a few "repeats" here and there. They were not on the same thing, but on works by the same people. A toss up on Mozart came up and there was one on The Marriage of Figaro. There was a also a toss up on Siddhartha and a bonus on Steppenwolf. I remember a toss up on [i]The Importance of Being Earnest, and I am pretty sure there was one the round after on Dorian Gray. This isn't that big of a deal, but it probably would have been better to have just one of each.

3) The bonus difficulty seemed to be harder in the first few rounds than in the playoffs. The pack we played on in the very last round of the day was noticeably easier than every other round of the tournament, especially with the bonuses.

4) For the science, it seemed like there was a lot more Physics than we would have expected.


It was a fun tournament, and the questions were excellent on the whole. Thanks to the editors for the work they put into it. Now that we've been practicing NAQT the last few days it makes me appreciate these questions a lot more.
Steven Hanley
FSU (2004-2006)
UGA (2007-2009)

Strongside
Rikku
Posts: 475
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 8:03 pm
Contact:

Post by Strongside » Mon Nov 12, 2007 1:42 am

Overall I thought ACF Fall was a pretty awesome tournament, and the questions were well-written. I had a lot of fun playing the questions.

Here are a few things I noted.

All questions about the War of the Pacific should have the Saltpeter War listed as an alternate answer. I said Saltpeter War for this question because I was having a little bit of trouble coming up with the other name and the moderator negged me for it, even though I tried to convince the moderator it should be correct.

The sonnet tossup was very transparent. All I really know about Thomas Wyatt is he did stuff with sonnets. When I heard that tossup I almost buzzed in and said sonnet off of Wyatt but waited until I heard Whoso list to hunt.

Shouldn't Anatomy Lesson be good enough? One of my opponents buzzed in and said Anatomy Lesson was prompted and said Anatomy Lesson of Dr. but couldn't come up with Tulp. He was negged and I got the tossup.

Did anyone else buzz in and say Malinowksi instead of Mauss on that tossup based on the Kula clue? I did. I realize that Malinowksi came up earlier but I couldn't resist.

On the Bartok, string quartets, and Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta Bonus, what were the easy, medium, and hard parts of the bonus. I zero'd that bonus?

Was this ACF Fall the easiest one in several years? That is what I heard, but I want to hear what the editors say. Regardless of it being easy for the college level, it was lots of fun.
Brendan Byrne

Drake University, 2006-2008
University of Minnesota, 2008-2010

User avatar
cornfused
Auron
Posts: 2160
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 3:22 pm
Location: Des Moines, IA

Post by cornfused » Mon Nov 12, 2007 1:44 am

MiltonPlayer47 wrote:2) There were a few "repeats" here and there. They were not on the same thing, but on works by the same people. A toss up on Mozart came up and there was one on The Marriage of Figaro. There was a also a toss up on Siddhartha and a bonus on Steppenwolf. I remember a toss up on [i]The Importance of Being Earnest, and I am pretty sure there was one the round after on Dorian Gray. This isn't that big of a deal, but it probably would have been better to have just one of each.
This I didn't mind, but I did get the question on the Umayyad Caliphate early by knowing it was something Muslim, this was ACF Fall, and the Abbasids had come up a round earlier.

And in case I hint otherwise, this was as a whole a QUALITY set and a heckuva lot of fun to play.

User avatar
Mike Bentley
Auron
Posts: 5712
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 11:03 pm
Location: Bellevue, WA
Contact:

Post by Mike Bentley » Mon Nov 12, 2007 1:58 am

I remember some of the history being not so great, but the only one that comes immediately to mind was the Sherman Anti-Trust Act tossup.

There were a few instances of science bonuses being much harder than other bonuses. Again, the only one that comes mind without be looking over the packets is the dielectric one in the Harvard B packet, but I seem to remember there being a few more.

A few bonuses also had the problem of being very easy 30s. The Da Vinci bonus has already been mentioned, but, again I believe there were a few more.

There were some tossups that seemed a bit hard for this tournament. For example, The Seven Weeks War probably should have been saved for a harder tournament.

But overall it was a good tournament. Thanks to all the editors who worked hard to make it so.
Mike Bentley
Treasurer, Partnership for Academic Competition Excellence
Adviser, Quizbowl Team at University of Washington
University of Maryland, Class of 2008

User avatar
Mr. Kwalter
Tidus
Posts: 617
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2003 1:48 am
Location: Houston, TX

Post by Mr. Kwalter » Mon Nov 12, 2007 2:06 am

OK Brendan.
All questions about the War of the Pacific should have the Saltpeter War listed as an alternate answer. I said Saltpeter War for this question because I was having a little bit of trouble coming up with the other name and the moderator negged me for it, even though I tried to convince the moderator it should be correct.
It seems you're right about the saltpeter war. If the protest had needed to be resolved, you would have won. Sorry that wasn't an alternate answer.
The sonnet tossup was very transparent. All I really know about Thomas Wyatt is he did stuff with sonnets. When I heard that tossup I almost buzzed in and said sonnet off of Wyatt but waited until I heard Whoso list to hunt.
As to the sonnets, the fact is that at ACF Fall, if you know Thomas Wyatt dealt with sonnets then you should get the question earlier than someone who doesn't. The vast majority of the Fall players do not know anything about Thomas Wyatt.
Shouldn't Anatomy Lesson be good enough? One of my opponents buzzed in and said Anatomy Lesson was prompted and said Anatomy Lesson of Dr. but couldn't come up with Tulp. He was negged and I got the tossup.
Show me a museum that has listed The Anatomy Lesson as a title for that painting and I'll say yes, The Anatomy Lesson should be acceptable. I know of no such museum, which is why it wasn't an alternate answer. Also, someone who says The Anatomy Lesson for The Anatomy Lesson of Doctor Nicholas Tulp should NOT be prompted. That's a title, and incomplete titles aren't promptable.
Did anyone else buzz in and say Malinowksi instead of Mauss on that tossup based on the Kula clue? I did. I realize that Malinowksi came up earlier but I couldn't resist.
As to your Malinowski buzz, sorry you negged. I don't think that tossup was problematic.
On the Bartok, string quartets, and Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta Bonus, what were the easy, medium, and hard parts of the bonus. I zero'd that bonus?
You're right about the Bartok bonus. That Bartok part should have had a much easier giveaway.
Eric Kwartler
Alumnus, University of Texas School of Law

NoahMinkCHS
Yuna
Posts: 827
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2003 1:46 pm
Location: Athens, GA / Macon, GA
Contact:

Post by NoahMinkCHS » Mon Nov 12, 2007 2:16 am

cornfused wrote:Why was the Andrew Hart packet (yes, I know he got heavily edited) so much easier than the others?
I wondered that, myself. Honestly, if ACF Fall were all at this level (making it pretty much a novice-only tournament), I wouldn't have a problem; I probably wouldn't have played, but we would definitely have sent some teams. Problem is, since most of the tournament was a good bit harder, it made that packet really stand out, which was especially unfortunate at our site where it ended up being the last packet read. (Of course, maybe I'm just sour we got beat by our "A" team in that round to fall to third place...)

Otherwise, though, I don't recall having any serious complaints. The editors did a great job.

User avatar
ecks
Wakka
Posts: 248
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:03 am
Location: Springfield, IL / Kirksville, MO

Post by ecks » Mon Nov 12, 2007 2:28 am

I really only had issues with two questions:

1) "Shooting Andrew Jackson" as a tossup answer. Seriously? An answer like that seems inappropriate, although I tend to not like sentence-y style answers anyway.

2) In a bonus about Austria, the third part was to name the German state whose capital is Munich. The other team answered Bayern, which is the actual German way of saying it, but that answer wasn't on the sheet. I guess I don't have a problem with the question itself, just that "Bayern" should have been included as well as "Bavaria".
Christopher Stone
Truman State University '09

Dennis
Lulu
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:02 am
Location: Providence, Rhode Island

Post by Dennis » Mon Nov 12, 2007 2:30 am

There were a few "repeats" here and there. They were not on the same thing, but on works by the same people. A toss up on Mozart came up and there was one on The Marriage of Figaro. There was a also a toss up on Siddhartha and a bonus on Steppenwolf. I remember a toss up on The Importance of Being Earnest, and I am pretty sure there was one the round after on Dorian Gray. This isn't that big of a deal, but it probably would have been better to have just one of each.


The reasoning for these "repeats" was there are only so many things which are ACF Fall level that can be asked about, so we didn't see a problem with them. The fact that one of an author's works may have been followed by another by that author in the next packet surely was just a coincidence, since I don't think anyone tells each tournament director which packets to use in which order, particularly since that depends on which teams wrote packets in any given region.
Dennis Jang
Brown Quiz Bowl

vig180
Wakka
Posts: 196
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 7:59 pm
Location: Athens, GA

Post by vig180 » Mon Nov 12, 2007 2:34 am

A few minor nitpicks:
During this engagement, one general toasted the opponent’s artillery, only to be splattered with mud soon after, prompting him to order the emplacement captured
I rang in at that point with "missionary ridge," since what was described up until that point was General Sheridan's drunken antics at Missionary Ridge, but unfortunately the question later went asking for the overall "Battle of Chattanooga," which was significantly more complicated. Maybe including a specific marker mentioning "at this city" at the start would have been advisable. Just a quick general question on this point- is it ever worthwhile to protest a question you're sure you got right if it doesn't impact the overall outcome of that match? I've been vehemently told by my teammates that it's not, but I'd just like confirmation.

There was another question on the siege of Constantinople that may have included an incorrect date and seemed kinda confusing as to what was wanted. Also, a question on The Picture of Dorian Gray included a number of pronouns in a row referring to "he", which I know led in a few rooms to "Dorian Gray" rather than the book itself.

Finally, I was amused to see that one of my bonuses was edited to include "1945" as the date for Brown v. Board of Education. The team whose room I was sitting in on during the bye nearly missed that part because of the date.

But overall the answer selection was consistently at the same level of past ACF Falls and the questions seemed to be shorter on the whole than last year. It was what was expected, and in that regard it was a good experience.

User avatar
Jeremy Gibbs Lemma
Rikku
Posts: 370
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 6:49 pm
Location: Kirksville, Missouri
Contact:

Post by Jeremy Gibbs Lemma » Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:10 am

bjb87 wrote: Did anyone else buzz in and say Malinowksi instead of Mauss on that tossup based on the Kula clue? I did. I realize that Malinowksi came up earlier but I couldn't resist.
YES .... that annoyed me... especially since I knew it was Mauss after that.

Schweizerkas
Lulu
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat May 12, 2007 1:01 am
Location: Stanford, CA

Post by Schweizerkas » Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:30 am

The bonus on the Catholic sacraments lacked valid alternate answers. "anointing of the sick" is the official name of extreme unction (I very rarely hear anyone actually use the term extreme unction; according to wikipedia it is the pre-Vatican II term). Also, "reconciliation" should be acceptable for "penance".

User avatar
theMoMA
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5652
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:00 am

Post by theMoMA » Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:47 am

So for the bonuses for my packet, basically I was under the impression when I was writing it (which was a long time ago, like early August) that we were aiming for significantly easier third parts than wound up happening. I wasn't the one who edited most of the things in that packet, so basically most of the stuff was out of my hands, or at least out of my mind, about three months ago. Sorry it turned out so anomalously easy for the set.

vandyhawk
Tidus
Posts: 584
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 3:42 am
Location: Seattle

Post by vandyhawk » Mon Nov 12, 2007 4:01 am

I thought it was a very good set overall. The difficulty and length seemed right on target, and I had few gripes on specific questions. The Vaughan Williams gaffe with Fantasia on Greensleeves being a clue then an answer in the same bonus was obviously just an oversight, but a pretty bad one at that. I think the Fuentes tossup was kind of weird , as A Change of Skin and Terra Nostra came before a couple things I haven't heard of. The Tyco Brahe bonus seemed inordinately tough too, asking for his work and his observatory. Given those are the only things I had to complain about besides a few things below (which I'll comment on b/c I'm procrastinating my grant writing), I think the editors did quite well.
MiltonPlayer47 wrote:1) I would have to look at the questions to confirm if this is true, but it seemed like there were more toss ups than usual on authors, composers, and artists, rather than works. This especially seemed to be true with composers. This doesn't bother me personally, and since this is meant to be a tournament for newer players it might be appropriate to do this, but it has always seemed to be a consensus among players that works are preferred over people, so this did surprise me.
I think you pretty much explained yourself - in keeping difficulty down, the number of tu's on people will go up a little bit. I didn't think it was out of line though.
MiltonPlayer47 wrote: 2) There were a few "repeats" here and there. They were not on the same thing, but on works by the same people. A toss up on Mozart came up and there was one on The Marriage of Figaro. There was a also a toss up on Siddhartha and a bonus on Steppenwolf. I remember a toss up on [i]The Importance of Being Earnest, and I am pretty sure there was one the round after on Dorian Gray. This isn't that big of a deal, but it probably would have been better to have just one of each.
I don't mind these, and Dennis explained it well. In fact, I wouldn't call them repeats at all, provided there was no repeated information.
MiltonPlayer47 wrote: 3) The bonus difficulty seemed to be harder in the first few rounds than in the playoffs. The pack we played on in the very last round of the day was noticeably easier than every other round of the tournament, especially with the bonuses.
There weren't really "prelim" and "playoff" rounds - it was just however the sites used them. For example, all the rounds featuring SE teams were used as prelims at Shorter, while this would not have been true elsewhere. Bonus difficulty was pretty consistent between rounds, but of course there will always be variability. It's just the nature of quizbowl - with serious editing, it can be minimized, but it's tough. With that said, we played the Maryland round in practice last week, and it was legitimately harder than the rest of the set it seemed.
MiltonPlayer47 wrote: 4) For the science, it seemed like there was a lot more Physics than we would have expected.
Maybe a little bit. There definitely was a lot of particle physics, including tossups on the strong nuclear force and beta decay in the same round (and the beta tu had an error in saying that it didn't change atomic number). This can probably just be attributed to what people submitted.
bjb87 wrote: Shouldn't Anatomy Lesson be good enough? One of my opponents buzzed in and said Anatomy Lesson was prompted and said Anatomy Lesson of Dr. but couldn't come up with Tulp. He was negged and I got the tossup.
Rembrandt has another Anatomy Lesson painting - of Dr. Joan Deijman, so I support the Tulp part being required. I think colloquially, it might just be called Anatomy Lesson, but it's not really defining enough.
bjb87 wrote: Did anyone else buzz in and say Malinowksi instead of Mauss on that tossup based on the Kula clue? I did. I realize that Malinowksi came up earlier but I couldn't resist.
Me too. I know a lot about Malinowski and didn't once think it was him until I had a reactionary buzz on hearing "Kula." I think Mauss is a bit tough for ACF Fall in the first place, and I feel like it could be written to avoid this obvious neg bait.
bjb87 wrote: On the Bartok, string quartets, and Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta Bonus, what were the easy, medium, and hard parts of the bonus. I zero'd that bonus?
I'd say it was medium, easy, hard? I don't know - both Paul and I could've 30'd this on our own, so we obviously did together. Concerto for Orchestra is certainly one of Bartok's most famous works, but I suppose the addition of Duke Bluebeard's Castle or something could've helped. String quartets was pretty straightforward I thought with the other non-Bartok clues, and then the last piece is an appropriate 3rd part at this tournament IMO.
Bentley Like Beckham wrote:The Seven Weeks War probably should have been saved for a harder tournament.
Really? Seems like that's a pretty standard answer at a wide range of tournaments. Austro-Prussian was acceptable early too.

MiltonPlayer47
Wakka
Posts: 123
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 7:14 pm
Location: Roswell, Georgia
Contact:

Post by MiltonPlayer47 » Mon Nov 12, 2007 9:38 am

Another thing that surprised one of my teammates and I was the lack of Shakespeare in the tournament. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I would have guessed more of his works would come up.

Regarding the Catholic sacraments bonus, one of my teammates is Catholic, and he said the same thing about other equivalents needing to be accepted.
Steven Hanley
FSU (2004-2006)
UGA (2007-2009)

User avatar
cornfused
Auron
Posts: 2160
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 3:22 pm
Location: Des Moines, IA

Post by cornfused » Mon Nov 12, 2007 1:04 pm

Bentley Like Beckham wrote:There were some tossups that seemed a bit hard for this tournament. For example, The Seven Weeks War probably should have been saved for a harder tournament.
I actually lost a match because this one was too easy and I overthought it. By the end of the question, it reduces to "Name a war fought between Austria and Prussia" (both countries having been named,) and "Austro-Prussian" was accepted.

User avatar
vcuEvan
Auron
Posts: 1086
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 5:49 pm
Location: Richmond VA

Post by vcuEvan » Mon Nov 12, 2007 1:25 pm

cornfused wrote:
Bentley Like Beckham wrote:There were some tossups that seemed a bit hard for this tournament. For example, The Seven Weeks War probably should have been saved for a harder tournament.
I actually lost a match because this one was too easy and I overthought it. By the end of the question, it reduces to "Name a war fought between Austria and Prussia" (both countries having been named,) and "Austro-Prussian" was accepted.
That should have been prompted not accepted... you got screwed.

User avatar
Mr. Kwalter
Tidus
Posts: 617
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2003 1:48 am
Location: Houston, TX

Post by Mr. Kwalter » Mon Nov 12, 2007 1:28 pm

I agree that the Seven Weeks War was (perhaps outlandishly) above the overall difficulty level of this set. That question probably should have said "accept Austro-Prussian War before Austria and Prussia are mentioned," though.
Eric Kwartler
Alumnus, University of Texas School of Law

User avatar
grapesmoker
Sin
Posts: 6364
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 5:23 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by grapesmoker » Mon Nov 12, 2007 1:49 pm

Kit Cloudkicker wrote:I agree that the Seven Weeks War was (perhaps outlandishly) above the overall difficulty level of this set. That question probably should have said "accept Austro-Prussian War before Austria and Prussia are mentioned," though.
There's no way that the Seven Weeks' War is "outlandishly" hard, or even very much beyond the difficulty of the set. It's a standard topic that's covered in any AP Euro class.
Jerry Vinokurov
ex-LJHS, ex-Berkeley, ex-Brown, sorta-ex-CMU
code ape, loud voice, general nuissance

User avatar
Mike Bentley
Auron
Posts: 5712
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 11:03 pm
Location: Bellevue, WA
Contact:

Post by Mike Bentley » Mon Nov 12, 2007 1:52 pm

grapesmoker wrote:
Kit Cloudkicker wrote:I agree that the Seven Weeks War was (perhaps outlandishly) above the overall difficulty level of this set. That question probably should have said "accept Austro-Prussian War before Austria and Prussia are mentioned," though.
There's no way that the Seven Weeks' War is "outlandishly" hard, or even very much beyond the difficulty of the set. It's a standard topic that's covered in any AP Euro class.
I can't really remember learning about it in my AP Euro class, although it's possible. I think it's more becuase I haven't really heard it in Quizbowl since then (or at least I don't remember hearing it), so it seemed difficult to me.
Mike Bentley
Treasurer, Partnership for Academic Competition Excellence
Adviser, Quizbowl Team at University of Washington
University of Maryland, Class of 2008

User avatar
Sima Guang Hater
Auron
Posts: 1844
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 1:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Post by Sima Guang Hater » Mon Nov 12, 2007 1:58 pm

grapesmoker wrote:There's no way that the Seven Weeks' War is "outlandishly" hard, or even very much beyond the difficulty of the set. It's a standard topic that's covered in any AP Euro class.
So's Dorr's Rebellion and the Essex Junto in AP US, but you probably won't see tossups on them at this level. Not that I'm complaining, since I can't buzz on history anyway.

I just wanted to comment that I greatly enjoyed playing on the set, and much more importantly, so did my teammates and Brown B. There were obviously a few quirks and a few giveaways in the first line, but that's not really much o f a problem for a tournament like fall.

My only complaints are that I should have been prompted "transition state" for "activation energy", since it said to prompt on "transition state energy", ketones should be acceptable right after the ozonolysis clue on the aldehydes tossup, writ of mandamus should not be in the first line of a Marbury v. Madison tossup, "No man is an island" is far more famous than any John Donne titles, and that the Chrono Trigger tossup, which will probably never be tossuped again, was shunted to tossup 24 in our round against Dartmouth.
Eric Mukherjee, MD PhD
Washburn Rural High School, 2005
Brown University, 2009
Medical Scientist Training Program, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, 2018
Intern in Internal Medicine, Yale-Waterbury, 2018-9
Dermatology Resident, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 2019-

Member Emeritus, ACF
Member, PACE
Writer, NAQT, NHBB, IQBT

"The next generation will always surpass the previous one. It's one of the never-ending cycles in life."

User avatar
Skepticism and Animal Feed
Auron
Posts: 3170
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 11:47 pm
Location: Arlington, VA

Post by Skepticism and Animal Feed » Mon Nov 12, 2007 2:00 pm

Austro-Prussian War is legit. It's a key part of what Bismarck did, and any AP Euro class that doesn't teach you about Bismarck is grossly negligent.
Bruce
Harvard '10 / UChicago '07 / Roycemore School '04
ACF Member emeritus
My guide to using Wikipedia as a question source

User avatar
Mettius Fufetius
Wakka
Posts: 209
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 2:41 am
Location: Greenville, SC
Contact:

Post by Mettius Fufetius » Mon Nov 12, 2007 2:23 pm

I agree that the Seven Weeks War is very famous, and it does come up all the time (14 hits on a SA search.) A better comparison to the Dorr Rebellion etc. would be its fascinating precursor, the Second Schleswig War. Unfortunately for my inexplicably deep knowledge of that conflict, but fortunately for the history distribution, that actually doesn't come up -- except as a clue to the Seven Weeks War.
Quinn James
Furman University '10

User avatar
Skepticism and Animal Feed
Auron
Posts: 3170
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 11:47 pm
Location: Arlington, VA

Post by Skepticism and Animal Feed » Mon Nov 12, 2007 2:29 pm

Marchbanks wrote:I agree that the Seven Weeks War is very famous, and it does come up all the time (14 hits on a SA search.) A better comparison to the Dorr Rebellion etc. would be its fascinating precursor, the Second Schleswig War. Unfortunately for my inexplicably deep knowledge of that conflict, but fortunately for the history distribution, that actually doesn't come up -- except as a clue to the Seven Weeks War.
I actually almost negged Austro-Prussian War with "Second Italian War of Independence" off the General Benedek clue. Then I realized that this was ACF Fall.

It's funny how individual battles from the Second Italian War of Independence come up all the time, but the war itself never does. Same with the Habsburg-Valois Wars -- Pavia, Cateau-Cambresis, League of Cambrai, etc. are common, but never the war they occurred in.

My guess is because these wars have awkward and unclear names.
Bruce
Harvard '10 / UChicago '07 / Roycemore School '04
ACF Member emeritus
My guide to using Wikipedia as a question source

User avatar
Mr. Kwalter
Tidus
Posts: 617
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2003 1:48 am
Location: Houston, TX

Post by Mr. Kwalter » Mon Nov 12, 2007 2:31 pm

grapesmoker wrote:It's a standard topic that's covered in any AP Euro class.
Since when is this the sole criterion? There are plenty of minor things covered briefly in one class in HS that are not tossupable. The Seven Weeks War is clearly not tossupable for Fall because most players just don't know it or know of it but can't pull it even off the giveaway. Also, in many states World history rather than European history has become the standard class taught in high schools, so the "everyone learns that in high school" argument is kind of silly anyway. Outlandish may have been the wrong word; all I meant was that there is not doubt in my mind that the Seven Weeks War is too hard.
Eric Kwartler
Alumnus, University of Texas School of Law

User avatar
Mr. Kwalter
Tidus
Posts: 617
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2003 1:48 am
Location: Houston, TX

Post by Mr. Kwalter » Mon Nov 12, 2007 2:38 pm

ToStrikeInfinitely wrote:My only complaints are that I should have been prompted "transition state" for "activation energy", since it said to prompt on "transition state energy", ketones should be acceptable right after the ozonolysis clue on the aldehydes tossup, writ of mandamus should not be in the first line of a Marbury v. Madison tossup, "No man is an island" is far more famous than any John Donne titles, and that the Chrono Trigger tossup, which will probably never be tossuped again, was shunted to tossup 24 in our round against Dartmouth.
I'll trust you on all that science business. Sorry about that. As to the Marbury tossup, I thought that tossup was crap too, honestly. Truth is, there isn't any good way to write a Marbury v Madison tossup, which is why in the future I will probably ban it from any tournaments I'm in charge of.

As to Donne, yeah you're wrong. People may know that phrase, but in general they don't know who wrote it. They do, however, know who wrote the Holy Sonnets and A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning.

Not that I personally put it at tossup 24, but the Chrono Trigger tossup was honestly a little harder than what I thought the trash should be for ACF Fall. It's easy to misjudge trash difficulty, and while that's a great game, I'm not really sorry it was post 20. Debate on this and all topics is of course welcome.
Eric Kwartler
Alumnus, University of Texas School of Law

User avatar
cvdwightw
Auron
Posts: 3446
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 12:46 am
Location: Southern CA
Contact:

Post by cvdwightw » Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:04 pm

In addition to the aforementioned Vaughn Williams bonus problem, there were two other bonuses I remember with the same problem: one on South American liberation and one on an Italian either author or artist (not having gotten the latter, I don't remember exactly). On the South American bonus, both I and a teammate thought the clues pointed to San Martin, but we both rejected it as a possible answer due to having come up as a clue in the previous part of the bonus.

Overall, I thought it was a very appropriate difficulty level for the field we had on the West Coast -- a nice mix of dinosaurs and newbies. There were a few clues that I thought were too early, but then again I've been playing for a while and those clues were probably much easier for me than the freshmen.

User avatar
AKKOLADE
Sin
Posts: 15224
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 8:08 am

Post by AKKOLADE » Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:15 pm

Kit Cloudkicker wrote:Not that I personally put it at tossup 24, but the Chrono Trigger tossup was honestly a little harder than what I thought the trash should be for ACF Fall. It's easy to misjudge trash difficulty, and while that's a great game, I'm not really sorry it was post 20. Debate on this and all topics is of course welcome.
I gotta argue with this. Chrono Trigger, while not a highly selling game during its initial release, is on virtually every single greatest video game list, usually in the top twenty, if not ten. I'd say this is a level of notability that makes its inclusion acceptable on the ACF Fall level.

Then again, if the biggest problem with a tournament is the answer selection on one trash toss-up, you're doing okay.

User avatar
grapesmoker
Sin
Posts: 6364
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 5:23 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by grapesmoker » Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:18 pm

ToStrikeInfinitely wrote:So's Dorr's Rebellion and the Essex Junto in AP US, but you probably won't see tossups on them at this level. Not that I'm complaining, since I managed to figure it out.
Both of those things were bonus parts, I believe. Nevertheless, neither Dorr's rebellion nor the Essex Junto play nearly as important a role in US history as the Austro-Prussian War does in the history of 19th century Europe. It's literally one of the defining conflicts of that time period and I don't understand how any survey of that slice of history could overlook it. The one thing I would have changed about that question in retrospect is that I would have written the giveaway to be something like "FTP, identify this conflict between two adjacent Teutonic powers which is also known by the brief length of time it lasted." That way answering "Austro-Prussian War" would be correct at any point.
Since when is this the sole criterion? There are plenty of minor things covered briefly in one class in HS that are not tossupable. The Seven Weeks War is clearly not tossupable for Fall because most players just don't know it or know of it but can't pull it even off the giveaway. Also, in many states World history rather than European history has become the standard class taught in high schools, so the "everyone learns that in high school" argument is kind of silly anyway. Outlandish may have been the wrong word; all I meant was that there is not doubt in my mind that the Seven Weeks War is too hard.
I'm going to hold fast to my point that this is a perfectly reasonable thing to be asked about at this level. Also, whether or not people learn about something in high school is a highly relevant criterion when selecting answer choices for tournaments which are designed to bridge the gap between high school and collegiate quizbowl. You may not doubt that it's too hard, but I think you're wrong about that.
Jerry Vinokurov
ex-LJHS, ex-Berkeley, ex-Brown, sorta-ex-CMU
code ape, loud voice, general nuissance

User avatar
Mike Bentley
Auron
Posts: 5712
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 11:03 pm
Location: Bellevue, WA
Contact:

Post by Mike Bentley » Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:22 pm

leftsaidfred wrote:
Kit Cloudkicker wrote:Not that I personally put it at tossup 24, but the Chrono Trigger tossup was honestly a little harder than what I thought the trash should be for ACF Fall. It's easy to misjudge trash difficulty, and while that's a great game, I'm not really sorry it was post 20. Debate on this and all topics is of course welcome.
I gotta argue with this. Chrono Trigger, while not a highly selling game during its initial release, is on virtually every single greatest video game list, usually in the top twenty, if not ten. I'd say this is a level of notability that makes its inclusion acceptable on the ACF Fall level.

Then again, if the biggest problem with a tournament is the answer selection on one trash toss-up, you're doing okay.
From what I recall there was already some other videogame tossup or bonus in this tournament, so it was probably good that this was made the last tossup. I think it's clear I'm a big fan of videogames, but they really should come up a maximum of 1/1 at an academic tournament, if not 1/0 or 0/1.

Edit: Oh yeah, the other videogame thing was that not so good NES bonus on Mario / Duck Hunt / Excitebike. Was there a team that didn't 20 this bonus? I know that you guys were going for really easy stuff, but Super Mario Bros. is find your ass easy (along with a few other bonus parts in this tournament), which is probably a little below what ACF Fall should be. But whatever, I'd rather have questions skew easy at this tournament than hard.
Mike Bentley
Treasurer, Partnership for Academic Competition Excellence
Adviser, Quizbowl Team at University of Washington
University of Maryland, Class of 2008

User avatar
Mr. Kwalter
Tidus
Posts: 617
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2003 1:48 am
Location: Houston, TX

Post by Mr. Kwalter » Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:43 pm

I'm perfectly willing to concede the Chrono Trigger point, as while I played the game and loved it, I'd hardly call myself an expert on video games in general. As to Seven Weeks, Jerry, of course it's an important criterion, but it's not the sole criterion. A bigger criterion is will this be converted by the majority of the field. The answer to that question is no. It will not be. This tournament was not written for the Northeast and the Midatlantic. It was written for the Southwest and the Southeast, where a higher concentration of much lower-level teams exist. I honestly think you're spoiled by playing in an environment where the Seven Weeks War is accessible. I don't think anyone at our SW site converted that tossup (correct me if I'm wrong, any SW person reading this who can contradict that statement), including the one-man team who won the entire tournament and the second and third place OU teams. Yeah, the questions are pyramidal and thus are just as useful at a medium level, but the difficulty is aimed at the worst teams.

As to Super Mario Brothers, that bonus was too easy, but the problem was not super mario brothers. If every team in the country 10s a bonus, great. That was not the only bonus with a find your ass easy part. There should have been a harder 3rd part, though. Super Mario Bros/Excite Bike/something else would have been better.

I'll also take this opportunity to apologize about the bonuses that had later prompt answers in the leadins. We should have checked the bonuses more thoroughly for mistakes like that.
Eric Kwartler
Alumnus, University of Texas School of Law

User avatar
jhn31
Wakka
Posts: 178
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:18 pm
Location: Starkville, MS

Post by jhn31 » Mon Nov 12, 2007 4:43 pm

As far as the Catholic sacraments questions goes, I (as a Catholic) answered Anointing of the Sick and Reconciliation, and didn't get credit for either. I definitely know that I was right, and the other team agreed, but instead we were counted wrong for both.

User avatar
Captain Sinico
Auron
Posts: 2838
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 1:46 pm
Location: Champaign, Illinois

Post by Captain Sinico » Mon Nov 12, 2007 5:17 pm

Kit Cloudkicker wrote:...most players just don't know [the Seven Weeks' War] or know of it but can't pull it even off the giveaway.
I don't think that's true.

MaS

PS: Empirical evidence from the Illinois site likewise disagrees.
Last edited by Captain Sinico on Mon Nov 12, 2007 5:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mike Sorice
Coach, Centennial High School of Champaign, IL (2014-) & Team Illinois (2016-2018)
Alumnus, Illinois ABT (2000-2002; 2003-2009) & Fenwick Scholastic Bowl (1999-2000)
ACF
IHSSBCA
PACE

User avatar
Captain Sinico
Auron
Posts: 2838
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 1:46 pm
Location: Champaign, Illinois

Post by Captain Sinico » Mon Nov 12, 2007 5:24 pm

A Lot of People wrote:I gave an answer I thought was right but then it was counted wrong!
Sorry about that. Some of you certainly did deserve credit. If you think your answer was right, please lodge a protest in-game. An instance of an alternative answer we missed should never affect the outcome of a game.
Assuredly we do our best to include as many alternate answers as we can find, but due to the multiplicity of things that stuff is known as, we are doomed to fail from time to time. There's no "the only thing that's right is what's on the paper" rule in ACF and you should be able to iron things out fairly easily by consulting some sources.

Later,
MaS
Mike Sorice
Coach, Centennial High School of Champaign, IL (2014-) & Team Illinois (2016-2018)
Alumnus, Illinois ABT (2000-2002; 2003-2009) & Fenwick Scholastic Bowl (1999-2000)
ACF
IHSSBCA
PACE

Strongside
Rikku
Posts: 475
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 8:03 pm
Contact:

Post by Strongside » Mon Nov 12, 2007 5:32 pm

As for the Anatomy Lesson of Doctor Tulp, I feel that Anatomy Lesson should at least be prompted. I realize it is not the full title, but sometimes Anatomy Lesson is enough, and sometimes it isn't. The same goes with The Tenth Muse Lately Sprung Up in America. I suppose it depends on how generous the questions writers are.

The Seven Weeks War/ Austro-Prussian War is perfectly fine for this tournament. I like to look at ACF Fall as similar in difficulty to the NAQT HSNCT. I got that tossup off the Treaty of Prague. From my memory this year's ACF Fall was more likely than not a little easier than the HSNCT, but I could be wrong. It is a college tournament and The Seven Weeks War isn't that obscure. There were certainly more difficult tossups at ACF Fall.

As for the Duckhunt/SuperMario Brothers/Exitbike bonus I did zero it. The first two parts sounded familiar but I am lousy at trash that is not sports. It was like the 13th round and I was playing solo so I will blame it on that. It was a perfectly fine trash bonus though.
Brendan Byrne

Drake University, 2006-2008
University of Minnesota, 2008-2010

User avatar
Captain Sinico
Auron
Posts: 2838
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 1:46 pm
Location: Champaign, Illinois

Post by Captain Sinico » Mon Nov 12, 2007 5:47 pm

bjb87 wrote:As for the Anatomy Lesson of Doctor Tulp, I feel that Anatomy Lesson should at least be prompted. I realize it is not the full title, but sometimes Anatomy Lesson is enough, and sometimes it isn't.
To my eyes, the rule as it currently stands is pretty clearly against you. That's for the reason Eric gave (find an exposition or museum that lists it as that, and you've got an argument.)
I also don't think that that's very good reasoning. I don't think you'd want a prompt for someone who says "Kant's Critique" or "Göethe's Wilhelm Meister" or "Chikamatsu's Love Suicides" or "Goya's Maja." Yet, those are pretty analogous to what you're asking for, namely, in each case, someone made more than one work with a similar title, each of those works sometimes goes by only a portion of its full name in spite of the ambiguity that this introduces, and some other tournaments have prompted on or accepted that short version in the past.
In short, I don't see why other people having different, laxer rules and standards should compel ACF to change its rules and standards ad hoc.

MaS
Mike Sorice
Coach, Centennial High School of Champaign, IL (2014-) & Team Illinois (2016-2018)
Alumnus, Illinois ABT (2000-2002; 2003-2009) & Fenwick Scholastic Bowl (1999-2000)
ACF
IHSSBCA
PACE

User avatar
theMoMA
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5652
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:00 am

Post by theMoMA » Mon Nov 12, 2007 5:55 pm

I was the one who prompted on "Anatomy Lesson." The person in question was a high schooler who was playing his first college tournament, and having played high school quizbowl in Minnesota, I know that "Anatomy Lesson" is generally an acceptable title there. I thought it was reasonable to prompt, so I did.

User avatar
Captain Sinico
Auron
Posts: 2838
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 1:46 pm
Location: Champaign, Illinois

Post by Captain Sinico » Mon Nov 12, 2007 5:56 pm

Regarding the names of the Catholic sacraments, Catholic Encyclopedia agrees that the names in-packet are the official names for the English-speaking world, as do my theology books from Catholic high school. Perhaps the sources are in error, but I'd want someone to cite a source better than Catholic teammates or personal experience before concluding that. So, in short, the question may not be so wrong as you think.
I do not say this to defend not prompting on more common names of the sacraments; the question is certainly at fault there (it didn't even explicitly ask for the official names.) My bad on that.

MaS
Mike Sorice
Coach, Centennial High School of Champaign, IL (2014-) & Team Illinois (2016-2018)
Alumnus, Illinois ABT (2000-2002; 2003-2009) & Fenwick Scholastic Bowl (1999-2000)
ACF
IHSSBCA
PACE

User avatar
Captain Sinico
Auron
Posts: 2838
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 1:46 pm
Location: Champaign, Illinois

Post by Captain Sinico » Mon Nov 12, 2007 5:59 pm

ToStrikeInfinitely wrote:I should have been prompted "transition state" for "activation energy"
It depends where you buzzed. The start of that question made it clear that the item in question was a quantity per se, which the transition state certainly ain't. However, it's common practice to accept acceptable adjectives when the noun of the answer becomes trivial... so, I'd agree with you if you buzzed after "energy," but not before.

MaS
Mike Sorice
Coach, Centennial High School of Champaign, IL (2014-) & Team Illinois (2016-2018)
Alumnus, Illinois ABT (2000-2002; 2003-2009) & Fenwick Scholastic Bowl (1999-2000)
ACF
IHSSBCA
PACE

Schweizerkas
Lulu
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat May 12, 2007 1:01 am
Location: Stanford, CA

Post by Schweizerkas » Mon Nov 12, 2007 6:25 pm

I don't want to make a big deal of it, because it's obviously not, but for whatever it's worth, the Catechism of the Catholic Church from the Vatican's website seems to prefer the terms "The Anointing of the Sick" and "The Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation":
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

Whatever, obviously the sacraments have lots of names and as an editor you can't always get them all.

Susan
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 1813
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2003 12:43 am

Post by Susan » Mon Nov 12, 2007 6:27 pm

Mike Sorice wrote:Regarding the names of the Catholic sacraments, Catholic Encyclopedia agrees that the names in-packet are the official names for the English-speaking world, as do my theology books from Catholic high school. Perhaps the sources are in error, but I'd want someone to cite a source better than Catholic teammates or personal experience before concluding that.
I was curious about this, so I looked it up. The current catechism gives the names as "penance and reconciliation" and "anointing of the sick". Mike, I'm not sure which version of the Catholic Encyclopedia you consulted, but if it's the one at newadvent.org, it's from 1913, which could explain its use of somewhat archaic terms.

Strongside
Rikku
Posts: 475
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 8:03 pm
Contact:

Post by Strongside » Mon Nov 12, 2007 6:55 pm

ImmaculateDeception wrote:
bjb87 wrote:As for the Anatomy Lesson of Doctor Tulp, I feel that Anatomy Lesson should at least be prompted. I realize it is not the full title, but sometimes Anatomy Lesson is enough, and sometimes it isn't.
To my eyes, the rule as it currently stands is pretty clearly against you. That's for the reason Eric gave (find an exposition or museum that lists it as that, and you've got an argument.)
I also don't think that that's very good reasoning. I don't think you'd want a prompt for someone who says "Kant's Critique" or "Göethe's Wilhelm Meister" or "Chikamatsu's Love Suicides" or "Goya's Maja." Yet, those are pretty analogous to what you're asking for, namely, in each case, someone made more than one work with a similar title, each of those works sometimes goes by only a portion of its full name in spite of the ambiguity that this introduces, and some other tournaments have prompted on or accepted that short version in the past.
In short, I don't see why other people having different, laxer rules and standards should compel ACF to change its rules and standards ad hoc.

MaS
I think the problem is that tournaments vary in what is the minimum answer required for it to be correct. Some non ACF tournaments might only require Anatomy Lesson. This is not to say that ACF should conform or stoop down to those tournaments, but it is just something from an objective point that I wouldn't really like to see a match decided on. I suppose it is sometimes a good idea to give full titles of novel as long as they are correct, in case the full titles are entirely underlined.
Brendan Byrne

Drake University, 2006-2008
University of Minnesota, 2008-2010

vandyhawk
Tidus
Posts: 584
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 3:42 am
Location: Seattle

Post by vandyhawk » Mon Nov 12, 2007 6:56 pm

ImmaculateDeception wrote: It depends where you buzzed. The start of that question made it clear that the item in question was a quantity per se, which the transition state certainly ain't. However, it's common practice to accept acceptable adjectives when the noun of the answer becomes trivial... so, I'd agree with you if you buzzed after "energy," but not before.
I also buzzed with "transition state" upon hearing Hammond Postulate at the end of the first sentence, but realized my mistake as soon as the moderator said neg 5. GG listening skills.
myamphigory wrote:I'm not sure which version of the Catholic Encyclopedia you consulted, but if it's the one at newadvent.org, it's from 1913
Wow, I didn't know this. I guess that's good to keep in mind.

User avatar
Captain Sinico
Auron
Posts: 2838
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 1:46 pm
Location: Champaign, Illinois

Post by Captain Sinico » Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:07 pm

myamphigory wrote:
Mike Sorice wrote:Regarding the names of the Catholic sacraments, Catholic Encyclopedia agrees that the names in-packet are the official names for the English-speaking world, as do my theology books from Catholic high school. Perhaps the sources are in error, but I'd want someone to cite a source better than Catholic teammates or personal experience before concluding that.
I was curious about this, so I looked it up. The current catechism gives the names as "penance and reconciliation" and "anointing of the sick". Mike, I'm not sure which version of the Catholic Encyclopedia you consulted, but if it's the one at newadvent.org, it's from 1913, which could explain its use of somewhat archaic terms.
That will clear-up that, then. Thanks. Sorry for the wrong answers.

MaS
Mike Sorice
Coach, Centennial High School of Champaign, IL (2014-) & Team Illinois (2016-2018)
Alumnus, Illinois ABT (2000-2002; 2003-2009) & Fenwick Scholastic Bowl (1999-2000)
ACF
IHSSBCA
PACE

User avatar
cornfused
Auron
Posts: 2160
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 3:22 pm
Location: Des Moines, IA

Post by cornfused » Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:12 pm

Adamantium Claws wrote:
cornfused wrote:
Bentley Like Beckham wrote:There were some tossups that seemed a bit hard for this tournament. For example, The Seven Weeks War probably should have been saved for a harder tournament.
I actually lost a match because this one was too easy and I overthought it. By the end of the question, it reduces to "Name a war fought between Austria and Prussia" (both countries having been named,) and "Austro-Prussian" was accepted.
That should have been prompted not accepted... you got screwed.
Well, no. The other team negged early into the question, and I ended up convincing myself it wasn't the Austro-Prussian war because Austria and Prussia were both mentioned... so I guessed something different. I've never heard of it being called the Seven Weeks' War - learned it in AP Euro as Austro-Prussian.

User avatar
Captain Sinico
Auron
Posts: 2838
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 1:46 pm
Location: Champaign, Illinois

Post by Captain Sinico » Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:21 pm

bjb87 wrote:I think the problem is that tournaments vary in what is the minimum answer required for it to be correct.
Okay, but again, I don't see why that should compel any other tournament to accept less than it otherwise would. I accept the normative fact that other tournaments have less stringent rules and prompt on/accept what ACF considers partial titles (and, hence, no titles at all.) Why does that support the positive assertion that ACF ought to accept those, too? In short, why is the less stringent tournament right? Why is it more fair for this exact same issue to decide a game when a tournament accepts a partial title than it is for it to decide a game when another tournament does not?

MaS
Mike Sorice
Coach, Centennial High School of Champaign, IL (2014-) & Team Illinois (2016-2018)
Alumnus, Illinois ABT (2000-2002; 2003-2009) & Fenwick Scholastic Bowl (1999-2000)
ACF
IHSSBCA
PACE

yoda4554
Rikku
Posts: 254
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 8:17 pm

Post by yoda4554 » Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:26 pm

Someone can correct me if I'm mistaken about this, but the Rembrandt work wasn't officially titled, I don't think. If you want the full common title, you'd have to force people to get "Nicolaes" in there as well, and I've seen differences on whether people call him Dr. or Prof. or without an honorific at all.

User avatar
grapesmoker
Sin
Posts: 6364
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 5:23 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by grapesmoker » Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:30 pm

cornfused wrote:Well, no. The other team negged early into the question, and I ended up convincing myself it wasn't the Austro-Prussian war because Austria and Prussia were both mentioned... so I guessed something different. I've never heard of it being called the Seven Weeks' War - learned it in AP Euro as Austro-Prussian.
This actually brings up an important point about names. There are lots of things which are named in a colloquial way but whose "official" names are either ambiguous or nonexistent. One good example is the Austro-Prussian War. Another is the Winter War; many years ago, I was negged for buzzing in very early on a tossup and saying, "The Russo-Finnish War of 1939." Such examples are prevalent in painting and sculpture and not uncommon in science. Of course, we should always make the best effort to identify alternative answers.
Someone can correct me if I'm mistaken about this, but the Rembrandt work wasn't officially titled, I don't think. If you want the full common title, you'd have to force people to get "Nicolaes" in there as well, and I've seen differences on whether people call him Dr. or Prof. or without an honorific at all.
Quite right. Of course, museums do call paintings by various names, and since we need some way of referring to the painting, the one the museum uses is what we should use too. On the other hand, since there is no formal title (in the sense that the painting is named colloquially for the scene it depicts, rather than being named by its artist in a formal sense), there is no need to be so stringent in the naming requirement as to demand the first name. All we need to do is to distinguish between this "Anatomy Lesson" and any other ones, and appending "Tulp" does the job.
Last edited by grapesmoker on Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jerry Vinokurov
ex-LJHS, ex-Berkeley, ex-Brown, sorta-ex-CMU
code ape, loud voice, general nuissance

Locked