Vanity and Answer Selection

[Sima Guang Hater]

Recent threads (the Gaddis discussion and the Best Writers thread) have raised an interesting issue about answer selection. Specifically, as writers and as human beings, all of us have specific topics that we're fond of, and that on some level, as players, we can predict what sorts of things will come up in a packet given the author. A packet written partly by Charles Meigs, for example, has a good chance of having a healthy does of central Asian content, while a packet with Susan Ferrari's fingerprints on it may have fashion or cuisine as the trash answer. This presents some issues to discuss, namely:

1) At one point is one merely following ones' interest, and at what point does it become self-indulgent? For example, Magin wrote ~90 tossups for his Gaddis tournament, and in the discussion thread issues were raised about 5 or so tossups that reflected his particular interests (Wieland was one, I believe). Is this too many, or is there some kind of conformation bias at work here?
2) How much of an issue is this in writing a good packet; namely, writing a packet which will determine the better team? Does it really give someone an advantage to know the proclivities of a certain writer going into the round?
3) Is this an issue as much for trash as it is for the academic content? I personally feel that mACF trash basically exists for the packet author to write about something that he finds amusing in his spare time; this is probably why those of you who know me can probably predict what kinds of trash will make it into my packet.

-Eric

[Susan]

To address #3, I (obviously) don't think it's a big deal if the trash in the packet is something the author finds fun to write about. I do not feel the same way about the academic content, and I think I try about as hard as anyone to make sure that the academic questions I write do not reflect my particular interests. This isn't entirely a fairness concern; if I write a tossup on an Evelyn Waugh work or whatever, I'm probably not learning that much, but if I write a tossup on Nip the Buds, Shoot the Kids, which, prior to trying to write the tossup, I had not read, I learn more. (Also, the more I write on the topics I like, the less other people's questions on topics I like will make it into the set, so there will be fewer tossups on topics I like for me to play on.)

Also, if vanity answer selection in trash seriously bugs people, I will avoid it in the future (or coax other people into writing the trash).

[grapesmoker]

I try to avoid writing questions on things that I am known to like, unless it's something I feel should be introduced into the canon, and I also try not to repeat myself. I think it does give an advantage to those who are familiar with a writer's proclivities, so I do my best to stay away from it. The answer space is so large anyway that it's impossible for anyone to game the system by eliminating the things I am known to like.

[No Rules Westbrook]

These are all fine questions. They're not that pertinent to a tourney like Gaddis which was, well, a vanity tournament - so who cares if there's plenty of vanity in answer selection. "Plenty" meaning some amount which isn't completely over the top, and I don't think it was at all over the top at Gaddis. But, I can see them coming into play at other tourneys.

In answer to the second question, I don't think writing on proclivities ever truly helps another player buzz or figure out an answer. You just don't have time to start considering the author's likes and dislikes in the middle of a question...the only time I can see it helping you is if you've already thought of an answer and you make the decision to buzz because it makes sense to you that the writer would have that as a tossup...like, "oh, Wieland would make sense, huh...Magin wrote this." Eh, long story short, I don't think knowledge of a writer's likes/dislikes helps anyone buzz except in very rare or egregious situations. The confirmation bias seems really strong...we pretend it helped us or our opponent after the fact, because it seems like it should.

On the third issue, I tend to be recklessly self-indulgent when it comes to trash for ACF packets (it's pretty much the only thing I can be noticeably vain with, cause I really don't have any "favorite things" on the academic side). I figure it's a small random scattering of trash and no big deal to just write whatever amuses you, as long as you move around different topics. Yeah, I mean, it's not like it's gonna help or hurt anyone buzzing, except insofar as their trash interests happen to intersect with those of the writer, which is probably just good fortune.

But, I agree with Jerry and Susan that - I almost never repeat myself and I try to write on things I don't know much about, because I figure that's the best way to learn. Granted, if I need to spit out a million questions in two days, I stop that strategy. But, yeah, you probably need to have a careful balance here - on the one hand, you should try not to go writing tossups that you're incapable of writing because you don't know anything about the subject matter. On the other, you should try to expand here and there so as to learn stuff.

[SnookerUSF]

I try to avoid writing questions on things that I am known to like, unless it's something I feel should be introduced into the canon, and I also try not to repeat myself. I think it does give an advantage to those who are familiar with a writer's proclivities, so I do my best to stay away from it. The answer space is so large anyway that it's impossible for anyone to game the system by eliminating the things I am known to like.

I think this is more the issue when it comes to the vanity of selection. It is less the vanity of the writer and more the awareness of those writer's proclivities on the part of the player that will depyramidalize tossups. Yet, individuals such as myself, who do not have the wide ranging base of knowledge to work with, will face more issues when it comes to writing pyramidal tossups on less or even non-canonical subject matters that aren't specifically in their wheelhouse. Thus, I am more likely to write about something I think I know fairly well, even if that leaves open the possibility of some lateral thinking based on a player's awareness of my interests and writing preferences, rather than writing a tossup that is more "objectively" transparent or suffers from some inherent structural or anti-pyramidal issues. This is usually only an issue at a handful of events: ACF Nationals, Chicago Open, and the Experimental Tourney's. But it still remains one to some degree primarily because I think the game should allow players who have deep but not particularly broad knowledge to continue to shape and guide the canon in the topics they feel most comfortable writing in.

As a rejoinder to the comments about trash tournaments, I believe that the operating structure in trash is one that prides itself on its own idiosyncratic vanity and commodified sense of eccentricity, and this is usually why I avoid playing, that and the hygienically challenged cohort that populates that scene.

[Terrible Shorts Depot]

One has to be vain in moderation. It would be fine for Charles to toss in an occasional Uzbekistan question, but if every packet includes a question on Central Asia, it is definitely too much. Basically, don't overdo it.

[fizzball]

Vanity answer selection is okay sometimes.

Appolonia answer selection is right out.