COTTAGE Bowl 2: General Discussion

Old college threads.
Locked
User avatar
TheRhymeMinister
Wakka
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 7:01 pm

COTTAGE Bowl 2: General Discussion

Post by TheRhymeMinister » Mon Feb 01, 2016 10:10 pm

Welcome to the general discussion of COTTAGE Bowl 2!

I would like to start by thanking all my co-writers/editors (Heather Gordon, Izzy Izumi, Max Johnstone, Cam MacInnis, Brendan McKendy, Nick Penner, Aaron Dos Remedios, Elizabeth Robson Gordon, Marthanne Robson, and David Witmer) for their contributions. COTTAGE Bowl 2 was a group effort, and the tournament wouldn't have been what it was without their contributions. I would especially like to highlight the contributions of Aaron Dos Remedios, who took responsibility for all the music questions in the set and more. This was a great group I had the pleasure to work with, and I'm very appreciative of them all.

The goal of the tournament was to be a not-too-easy, not-too-hard trash tournament, that retained some of the more unique elements of COTTAGE Bowl 1 (5 line tossups, female interest questions, a handful of unique bonus formats) while also having accessible and fairly mainstream content. I feel like the set achieved that, although obviously I appreciate constructive feedback to build off of for subsequent mirror and editions of the tournament.

Please leave any comments/questions about the tournament at large below.
The Nick Penner
Waterloo Collegiate Institute '10
Carleton University '15

The Schopenhauer Power Hour
Lulu
Posts: 91
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:43 pm

Re: General Discussion

Post by The Schopenhauer Power Hour » Mon Feb 29, 2016 5:06 pm

Thanks for this set! I had a lot of fun.

Having played COTTAGE Bowl last year, I could tell that there was a genuine effort to address some of the larger issues in last year's set. That said, I think that effort ultimately had mixed results. If nothing else, the fact that four teams in our ten-team field dropped before playoffs, including, I believe, two of the top four teams, is probably indicative of some systematic issues with the set. (To be fair, the event ran on Sunday and started a little late, so there could have been other reasons for drops as well.)

Last year, my three major criticisms of the tournament were:
1. Extreme variability in bonus difficulty
2. Transparent answerlines
3. Difficulty cliffs

I think overall, issue #1 was resolved well this year (as the tournament announcement mentioned it would be). There were still some issues of easy-easy-easy bonus parts, or impossible-impossible-pityten, but all in all I think there was less crazy variability than last year.

I also think that #2 was minimized to some extent. There were fewer instances of, "what else could this possibly be?" There were still definitely some questions like that, but I felt like I could see concrete steps being taken to address this relative to last year.

I don't really think #3 was addressed as much-- there were multiple instances where my teammates and I buzzed in the first or second line on one of the most well-known things about the subject (e.g. a plotline from Treme that I gather is one of the most famous things about the show, or an early clue about a rapper being from Sri Lanka in a tossup on M.I.A). I guess I didn't feel so much like these tossups had difficulty *cliffs* per se, as I did that they just started off easy. I think this is the kind of thing that is most easily addressed by making sure that if the writer isn't familiar with the subject, they run the tossup by someone who is (and in general just making sure every question gets playtested at least once).

My biggest complaint is probably that the set wasn't powermarked-- this was honestly pretty disappointing to me. I don't think it's necessary to belabor the point, but it's really not a time-consuming process (relative to writing the set) and it makes a set significantly more exciting to play. I really hope that next year's set can have powers.

Some other thoughts on the set:

One thing I personally liked this year was the relative prevalence of musicals-- there seemed to be 1/0 or 0/1 every other packet, which is definitely much higher than other tournaments but seems reasonable to me for a trash distribution. I'm curious to see if my fellow players felt this was an appropriate level, or too much. (I do see that musicals were classified under the Music distribution, and I would argue that instead they should go under Other-- especially with such a large Other distribution at 3/3. Musicals seem pretty niche for them to be replacing a question on some other type of music that is almost always going to be more mainstream.)

One of the least enjoyable things about this tournament for me as an American was how conspicuously Canadian it felt. There were not just a huge bunch of hockey questions, but Canada-centric music and TV as well. This isn't an objective flaw of the tournament by any means, but it was very noticeable. Just in terms of expanding your audience and making this a set that is more likely to get mirrored in the US in the future, it would be helpful for questions to be less Canada-centric. (In particular, cramming baseball/football/basketball/hockey into 3/3 instead of counting hockey under "other sports" greatly reduced the prevalence of non-hockey Big Four questions.)

It felt like there was a lot of rap/hip-hop-- a 1/1 distribution feels heavy to me, but that might just be personal preference. An alternative might be to do the subdistribution by time period (e.g. 2/2 pre-1990, 2/2 post-1990, which is what we did for TERP), but I don't know that that's objectively better. [EDIT: I saw from Aaron's post in the other thread that there was a time-period breakdown as well.]

There were a lot of album tossups. The set at least did a good job of making sure that most of the albums that were asked about were iconic enough to be well-known, but in general I just don't think album tossups reward music knowledge that well. If it's an artist who has multiple iconic albums, the early clues (on lesser-known songs on the album) generally aren't going to be helpful enough to identify which album it is, and if it's an artist with only one well-known album, just ask about the artist instead. Either way, I think you're generally better off just asking about either the artist or the best-known track. One or two album tossups per set seems more reasonable to me than six.

There were too many questions with "description acceptable." Just like album tossups, a couple of these are fine but for most of them you can probably use the same clues and make the answer about something specific. And at least a few of these just didn't seem like concrete enough Things to ask about (e.g. Christian Rock or "erotica for females").

I don't think the tossups on "bra cups" or "lipstick" were in any way an improvement on the "female trash" questions last year, e.g. tampon brands. I don't love tossups on consumer products in general-- I assume these tossups were written in light of the discussion from last year but if so, I think they really missed the mark in trying to take the forum's feedback into account (and even if that's not the reason they were included, I just don't think these are good answerlines). There were other parts of this tournament (e.g. the emphasis on musicals) that may or may not have been intended as a way to expand the canon into areas more traditionally associated with women, and I think those questions were laudable, but just saying, "what consumer product do I associate with [X group]? Let's do a tossup about that!" is not a good way to cater to those people.

Last-- there were too many answerlines on this tournament about Internet ephemera. Off the top of my head, without looking at my notes, I can remember tossups on: Ikea Heights, The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny, David after Dentist, the Purple-Shirted Eye-Stabber, The Button, and John Lennon (on solely clues about memes). Those were just the tossups, and just the ones that I can remember! My concerns about these kinds of questions are:
a. Most of these answers (and Internet memes in general by nature) are too transient. I answered the tossups on Ultimate Showdown and David After Dentist, and I really enjoy both of those things, but they came out in 2005 and 2007, respectively! Frankly, I really enjoyed these buzzes, but that doesn't make them good things to ask about (especially Ultimate Showdown, which you have to not only remember from 11 years ago but also get the name of). You can cover the same subdistribution and probably dramatically increase tossup conversion by asking about viral songs or videos from the past year or two.
b. Even if you want to ask about things like Ikea Heights, I don't think there's any reason not to just make the answerline "Ikea." You can use exactly the same clues, but that way, if the tossup gets to the end, someone can buzz on "name this furniture store" and they don't have to sit there just trying to fraud the name of the actual show. The same goes for the Purple-Shirted Eye-Stabber and probably others.
c. The rest of the Other distribution suffered due to the prevalence of these kinds of questions. The increased size of the distribution (3/3) probably helped to keep these tossups from being quite as stifling as they could have been, but even so, they resulted in a dearth of other good "Other" tossups-- comics in particular were very, very skimped on, and even if you don't want to include a full 1/1 on comics, I think they should represent a larger chunk of the Other distribution than they did.

I'll add more thoughts in the next couple of days as they come to me. I do think there are several ways this set can improve for next year (as this year was an improvement on the original), but overall this set was enjoyable, and I know a lot of time went into creating it, so thanks again!
Logan Anbinder
University of Maryland '12

User avatar
adosreme
Rikku
Posts: 324
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 11:14 pm

Re: General Discussion

Post by adosreme » Mon Feb 29, 2016 8:14 pm

Hey Logan, thank you very much for the feedback! I'll comment on it later when I get the chance, but this is very much appreciated!
Aaron Dos Remedios
Formerly of the Waterloo School of Abstruse Canadian Inside Jokes (University of Waterloo)

User avatar
Taper or die. Can you do any less?
Rikku
Posts: 276
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 2:42 pm

Re: General Discussion

Post by Taper or die. Can you do any less? » Mon Feb 29, 2016 8:51 pm

I played this set, and was not involved in its production in any way, but I just wanna say that Logan's post is great and a good example of what post-tournament feedback posts should be like.
Aayush Rajasekaran (he/him or she/her)
University of Waterloo, 2016
University of Waterloo, 2018

User avatar
Masked Canadian History Bandit
Rikku
Posts: 443
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2009 11:43 pm

Re: General Discussion

Post by Masked Canadian History Bandit » Mon Feb 29, 2016 11:59 pm

The Schopenhauer Power Hour wrote: One of the least enjoyable things about this tournament for me as an American was how conspicuously Canadian it felt. There were not just a huge bunch of hockey questions, but Canada-centric music and TV as well. This isn't an objective flaw of the tournament by any means, but it was very noticeable. Just in terms of expanding your audience and making this a set that is more likely to get mirrored in the US in the future, it would be helpful for questions to be less Canada-centric. (In particular, cramming baseball/football/basketball/hockey into 3/3 instead of counting hockey under "other sports" greatly reduced the prevalence of non-hockey Big Four questions.)
The obvious solution to this is that if localization is desired, the American host should produce a small number of American content to replace the most objectionable Canadian content.
Patrick Liao
Lisgar Collegiate Institute 2011, University of Pennsylvania 2015, University of Toronto Faculty of Law 2019
President, Ontario Quizbowl Association (ONQBA)
Support the ONQBA on Facebook!

The Schopenhauer Power Hour
Lulu
Posts: 91
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:43 pm

Re: General Discussion

Post by The Schopenhauer Power Hour » Tue Mar 01, 2016 12:41 am

Patrick, I like that solution, but I don't know how realistic that expectation is in most cases. Since teams hosting trash mirrors are often TD'ed by the team members who have no interest in trash, while the team members who like trash are actually playing, adding an expectation that the host create supplemental questions would either limit interested players from playing in the tournament, or leave the entire field at the mercy of people who don't care about trash. Also, as I writer, I would feel a little leery giving a blanket signoff on random mirror hosts to add questions to my set especially when it wouldn't be immediately clear who wrote what. (And creating some kind of ad-hoc collaboration just seems super messy!)
Logan Anbinder
University of Maryland '12

User avatar
TheRhymeMinister
Wakka
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 7:01 pm

Re: General Discussion

Post by TheRhymeMinister » Tue Mar 01, 2016 1:11 am

Echoing what Aaron and Aayush already said, thanks for this feedback Logan. It’s great to see such a thorough, well-thought-out review. Even though I won’t address every point rest assured they’ve been considered and will be taken into account for any future iterations of COTTAGE Bowl.
I don't really think #3 was addressed as much-- there were multiple instances where my teammates and I buzzed in the first or second line on one of the most well-known things about the subject (e.g. a plotline from Treme that I gather is one of the most famous things about the show, or an early clue about a rapper being from Sri Lanka in a tossup on M.I.A). I guess I didn't feel so much like these tossups had difficulty *cliffs* per se, as I did that they just started off easy. I think this is the kind of thing that is most easily addressed by making sure that if the writer isn't familiar with the subject, they run the tossup by someone who is (and in general just making sure every question gets playtested at least once).
This would be, personally, my biggest “regret” about the set. There were too many questions (including many I wrote) that play as “boom or bust”. You either know them basically off the bat, or you don’t until the giveaway/not at all. Playtesting is part of it, for sure, but it also comes down to answerline selection in some cases. I could’ve done a better job at whittling down and replacing subjects until there was more balance. I think this issue is most prominent in the TV distro of the tournament, but of course it’s something to look out for everywhere. (This is intended not as simply an apology, but as a note for myself/others who write similar tournaments in the future)
My biggest complaint is probably that the set wasn't powermarked-- this was honestly pretty disappointing to me. I don't think it's necessary to belabor the point, but it's really not a time-consuming process (relative to writing the set) and it makes a set significantly more exciting to play. I really hope that next year's set can have powers.
The decision to not have the set powermarked was a very conscious one that goes hand in hand with the idea of having shorter (5 line) tossups. In practice, adding powermarks would mean the first (and sometimes second) lines are in power, you have three or two middle lines, and then a giveaway. That feels like not enough “meat” to justify powers and simply trains players to make overly early guesses whenever they have a hunch about subject matter. That said, if others agree with you (and I’d encourage those people to voice their opinions) that’s not a hard change to implement in future.
One of the least enjoyable things about this tournament for me as an American was how conspicuously Canadian it felt. There were not just a huge bunch of hockey questions, but Canada-centric music and TV as well. This isn't an objective flaw of the tournament by any means, but it was very noticeable. Just in terms of expanding your audience and making this a set that is more likely to get mirrored in the US in the future, it would be helpful for questions to be less Canada-centric. (In particular, cramming baseball/football/basketball/hockey into 3/3 instead of counting hockey under "other sports" greatly reduced the prevalence of non-hockey Big Four questions.)
In my defense, I did edit out some of the most egregiously Canadian content before the American mirrors (sorry all you American fans of things like curling or the CBC). One factor that may have subconsciously led to players perceiving this as a bigger issue than it is would be the fact that I frequently noted events/people who are Canadian as such in questions (e.g. referring to Elisha Cuthbert as “this Canadian actress” instead of simply “this actress” or using the winner of the 2015 Canadian Open as a clue instead of another golf tournament). The intention was for this to serve as a guide point for Canadian players (who are generally great at being able to identify/knowing things about Canada/Canadians) while serving merely as a garnish for Americans. I’m also hesitant to move hockey entirely to the Other Sports distro, but I could replace some of those questions for the American set (and, vice versa, remove some of the college sports in the Canadian set for more hockey). Again, further Americanisation is possible for future sets but it’s a question of balance.
Most of these answers (and Internet memes in general by nature) are too transient. I answered the tossups on Ultimate Showdown and David After Dentist, and I really enjoy both of those things, but they came out in 2005 and 2007, respectively! Frankly, I really enjoyed these buzzes, but that doesn't make them good things to ask about (especially Ultimate Showdown, which you have to not only remember from 11 years ago but also get the name of). You can cover the same subdistribution and probably dramatically increase tossup conversion by asking about viral songs or videos from the past year or two.
Ironically enough, one of my goals with the “internet” portion of the Other distro was to broaden the sorts of answerlines seen in other trash tournaments. In my experience playing other trash tournaments, that area simply feels like a rundown of the most popular in the past year which (in my experience) makes it too easy to anticipate potential tossup answerlines (or at least narrow it down very quickly). Ultimate Showdown and David After Dentist were subjects I wrote about in part due to their staying power. I have no stats about how often those questions were converted, but at least from what I saw there were players able to handle those questions (anecdotally, Ultimate Showdown was one-lined in the room I was reading for at the Carleton tournament) If subject areas like Music and Movies are expected to go out of their way to balance out the time periods of their subject matter, why shouldn’t “internet” questions even if it’s to a more relative extent? I concede there is room to debate what exactly is worthy of questions /memorable/important/ from older internet content but removing it altogether frankly seems like a big step backwards to me.

Again, thank you for your kind summation as well as your tough but fair feedback. I’m sure if there are future iterations of the tournament they’ll continue to improve and incorporate user feedback like yours.
The Nick Penner
Waterloo Collegiate Institute '10
Carleton University '15

The Schopenhauer Power Hour
Lulu
Posts: 91
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:43 pm

Re: General Discussion

Post by The Schopenhauer Power Hour » Tue Mar 01, 2016 11:31 am

Hey Nick, thanks for the response. I don't mean to get into a back-and-forth on every point (and I think you addressed everything well anyway) but a couple of points--
TheRhymeMinister wrote:The decision to not have the set powermarked was a very conscious one that goes hand in hand with the idea of having shorter (5 line) tossups. In practice, adding powermarks would mean the first (and sometimes second) lines are in power, you have three or two middle lines, and then a giveaway. That feels like not enough “meat” to justify powers and simply trains players to make overly early guesses whenever they have a hunch about subject matter. That said, if others agree with you (and I’d encourage those people to voice their opinions) that’s not a hard change to implement in future.
I wouldn't think shorter powers would be more likely to encourage people to take shots in the dark (unless the answerlines are fraudable, in which case there's a bigger problem), and I wouldn't have an issue with powers that are generally just the first 1-2 clues. I still think powers are all upside but I'm glad to hear it was an intentional decision. I'm curious as well to hear others' thoughts.
TheRhymeMinister wrote:In my defense, I did edit out some of the most egregiously Canadian content before the American mirrors (sorry all you American fans of things like curling or the CBC). One factor that may have subconsciously led to players perceiving this as a bigger issue than it is would be the fact that I frequently noted events/people who are Canadian as such in questions (e.g. referring to Elisha Cuthbert as “this Canadian actress” instead of simply “this actress” or using the winner of the 2015 Canadian Open as a clue instead of another golf tournament). The intention was for this to serve as a guide point for Canadian players (who are generally great at being able to identify/knowing things about Canada/Canadians) while serving merely as a garnish for Americans. I’m also hesitant to move hockey entirely to the Other Sports distro, but I could replace some of those questions for the American set (and, vice versa, remove some of the college sports in the Canadian set for more hockey). Again, further Americanisation is possible for future sets but it’s a question of balance.
Glad to hear there was some thought put into this as well! I do think the specific Canadian callouts had the effect of making the set seem maybe more oppressively Canadian than it was. I would still love to see a more Americanized set but as I said, that's not something that is objectively the necessary thing to do.
TheRhymeMinister wrote: If subject areas like Music and Movies are expected to go out of their way to balance out the time periods of their subject matter, why shouldn’t “internet” questions even if it’s to a more relative extent? I concede there is room to debate what exactly is worthy of questions /memorable/important/ from older internet content but removing it altogether frankly seems like a big step backwards to me.
I see your point, but I think the reason we ask questions on older music and movies and not older memes is because specific music and movies from twenty, thirty [EDIT: or fifty, or sixty] years ago are still relevant in our culture today. We still listen to the Beatles, we still watch the Godfather, etc. Whereas for the vast majority of memes, they happen and then are never really referenced again. (David After Dentist is maybe the best answerline of the ones I originally listed because it has allegedly recurred in pop culture, at least according to Wikipedia, but I maintain that most of the Internet tossups were on things that didn't leave a lasting mark on pop culture.) So that's the distinction in my mind.

EDIT: We want trash tournaments to ask about things that are pop culturally significant. There's no denying that Internet culture in general is culturally significant, but each individual meme probably is not. So that's why asking about recent memes, fresh in players' minds, is a good way to nod towards Internet culture without requiring people to remember obscure flash videos from a decade ago.

I also don't think that Internet culture generally lends itself to pyramidal question-writing-- is Aaron Carter being run over by the Batmobile (or whatever that clue was) really a more difficult clue than Abraham Lincoln being tripped by Indiana Jones' whip? (Man, this is a weird song.) Movies, music, and TV all have better- and lesser-known parts (lyrics, characters, etc.) but memes tend to be, "have you heard of this thing? If so, you know everything there is to know about it. If not, you're going to just sit there for the whole tossup." So that's another concern I have with a heavy Internet distribution.

Thanks again!
Logan Anbinder
University of Maryland '12

User avatar
theMoMA
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5689
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:00 am

Re: General Discussion

Post by theMoMA » Tue Mar 01, 2016 12:18 pm

I think my main complaint has been addressed: there were certainly a fair number of questions that cut to the chase fairly abruptly, either in the first line of the question, or by having a very hard clue followed by a very easy clue. A good criterion to keep in mind for avoiding some of the issues with this set is that players should be able to buzz by matching the clue specifically to the answer, but typically shouldn't be able to buzz by simply mapping the clue to the existence of the answer.

The M.I.A. tossup is a good example: if you simply know of the existence of a woman from Sri Lanka who raps, you're probably going to buzz on the clue about a "bad bitch that came from Sri Lanka," regardless of whether you've ever heard that lyric. It's better to replace that clue with something like a lyric from "Paper Planes" or another M.I.A. track, because that's something that players will likely be able to match to M.I.A., as opposed to something that merely invites buzzes from those who know of M.I.A. Likewise, that tossup on the "Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny" seemed pretty easy to get if you simply know of its existence; the first line basically told you everything you needed to know, i.e. that it's a fight between lots of vastly divergent famous personalities.

The way to avoid this is pretty simply: imagine you're playing the question and know the essential gist of what the answer is, but nothing else. If you're able to sleuth out the answer from a clue based on only a vague understanding of the essential nature of the answer, it's probably better to pick a more specific clue that does not point so directly to the essence of what's being asked for.

I'll also echo Logan's comment that the internet questions should strive to integrate more with the main current of pop culture. The internet questions were the ones that tended to go dead at our site. Asking a general knowledge question on Ikea that mentions "Ikea Heights" seems like a fine idea; a tossup on "Ikea Heights" itself empirically did not go over very well.

I liked the shorter questions (and I realize that some difficulty cliffs are harder to avoid when questions are short, so I give some of those a pass). I also thought this set represented an improvement on last year's iteration, and was happy to have a light event to play during the housewrite weekend; thanks to the writers/editors for the set.
Andrew Hart
Minnesota alum

User avatar
DumbJaques
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 3080
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 6:21 pm
Location: Columbus, OH

Re: General Discussion

Post by DumbJaques » Tue Mar 01, 2016 6:08 pm

female interest questions
The somewhat cringe-inducing nature of this phrase aside, I am continually baffled at how the editors of Cottage Bowl continue to define this, because it basically epitomizes a huge part of quizbowl's issues with sexism (at least as it pertains to cluelessness over subtleties of gendered experiences). Like, dude. We explained pretty patiently and systematically last year why it was bad to have "female interest questions" about tampon brands. Like, really, really bad. I didn't have high hopes for this event, but I did think that this was going to be addressed (or like, at least... improved?). Instead, we got horrendous tossups on "bra size" and "lipstick."

I'd like these questions to be posted here, so that I can fully articulate why they're problematic - I also think it might be helpful for all of us if you posted all the questions you deemed to be of "female interest" (gahh). But the point is that these tossups were terrible. They were of course terrible in a quizbowl sense, because they played awfully and were not interesting. But they were also terrible in a more deeply problematic way, namely that they reflected an understanding of gender-diverse answer selection that was basically a fucking parody of itself. At this point, you'd basically be inclined to recommend teams study for future Cottage Bowl "female interest" questions by walking to a local middle school, asking 13 year-old boys "WHAT DO GIRLS HAVE???," and jotting down responses of "BOOBS!", "MAKEUP", etc.

Also note that I'm not talking about like, good tossups on lipstick or bra size in pop culture (if such a thing could plausibly even exist). These tossups were terrible. It should be quite obvious that gender inclusivity in quizblowl is not helped by truly abominable questions on "lipstick" that basically says "it was from Sumeria and then someone used it for the first time in America and it once was only red but now it can be other colors for 10 points name this makeup product applied to lips." Indeed, the suggestion that such questions embody topics of "female interest" (and the underlying logic one used to arrive at such goal) is itself indicative of many of the things WRONG with how quizbowl does gender stuff.

In contrast, I will note that a few of the other questions that I would probably assume counted under your unfortunately-named umbrella seemed to be very much an embodiment of things people who care about gender issues in pop culture would know about (ie, the manic pixie dream girl tossup that talked about critical reaction to the concept). So, yeah, good, some stuff is an improvement here. You still asked about boobs and makeup though so please stop doing that and PLEASE stop proudly claiming it as "female interest questions," jesus.
Chris Ray
OSU
University of Chicago, 2016
University of Maryland, 2014
ACF, PACE

User avatar
adosreme
Rikku
Posts: 324
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 11:14 pm

Re: General Discussion

Post by adosreme » Wed Mar 02, 2016 7:00 pm

Sorry for the delay on this response, and thank you once again for all your feedback.
The Schopenhauer Power Hour wrote:I don't really think #3 was addressed as much-- there were multiple instances where my teammates and I buzzed in the first or second line on one of the most well-known things about the subject (e.g. a plotline from Treme that I gather is one of the most famous things about the show, or an early clue about a rapper being from Sri Lanka in a tossup on M.I.A).


The M.I.A. thing was my bad. To fix it, I'd probably move it down a bit (and consequently move the Madonna clue up and change it to lyrics instead of giving the title).
The Schopenhauer Power Hour wrote:I guess I didn't feel so much like these tossups had difficulty *cliffs* per se, as I did that they just started off easy
There were two reasons why this happened. First, I intentionally shot for an easy difficulty (at least on music). My target difficulty was slightly above ACRONYM, knowing that it would likely land a bit further above that. Second, a lot of cliffs may have happened due to my relative inexperience at writing to a five line limit. I found that I had crafted some of the questions in my head and then they ended up being a little too long when written down, so I ended up doing a bit of clue excision and the missing clues may have caused the cliffs.
The Schopenhauer Power Hour wrote:It felt like there was a lot of rap/hip-hop-- a 1/1 distribution feels heavy to me, but that might just be personal preference.
You're not the only one who thought that. I thought I'd try giving rap a 1/1 based on the position that, at least in today's culture, rap is just as prevalent as rock. To perhaps temper this a little, I ended up grouping a whole bunch of genres together to make this 1/1 (I think I looked at rap, hip hop, R&B, Soul, and Funk here).
The Schopenhauer Power Hour wrote:One or two album tossups per set seems more reasonable to me than six.
The reason for this was to recognize that, while most people consume music on a track-by-track basis, there are many who do so in the form of entire albums (e.g. the vinyl collectors of old). But as you said, perhaps 2-3 questions would be enough to satisfy this group though.
The Schopenhauer Power Hour wrote:And at least a few of these just didn't seem like concrete enough Things to ask about (e.g. Christian Rock or "erotica for females").
The Christian music tossup was a semi-experimental attempt at asking about a genre that I haven't seen represented in trash music yet was still very much an established thing. I felt that the fact that it had its own Billboard chart, awards shows, and offshoots of major record labels made it enough of a concrete genre to ask about.
The Schopenhauer Power Hour wrote:There were other parts of this tournament (e.g. the emphasis on musicals) that may or may not have been intended as a way to expand the canon into areas more traditionally associated with women
The emphasis on musicals was not specifically designed to be female-friendly. What I did intentionally do in this regard was try and ensure that approximately 50% of the questions were about women.
Aaron Dos Remedios
Formerly of the Waterloo School of Abstruse Canadian Inside Jokes (University of Waterloo)

The Schopenhauer Power Hour
Lulu
Posts: 91
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:43 pm

Re: General Discussion

Post by The Schopenhauer Power Hour » Wed Mar 02, 2016 8:26 pm

Thanks for the thoughts!
adosreme wrote: The Christian music tossup was a semi-experimental attempt at asking about a genre that I haven't seen represented in trash music yet was still very much an established thing. I felt that the fact that it had its own Billboard chart, awards shows, and offshoots of major record labels made it enough of a concrete genre to ask about.
I'm all for promoting an underrepresented genre, but I think that's something you could have done by asking about a (well-known) Christian rock song or artist, rather than "Christian rock" itself. I think it's certainly accurate to call this a genre in the same way that R&B or heavy metal are genres, but you wouldn't write a tossup on "R&B" or "heavy metal," you'd tossup some notable song or artist. I just don't think genre tossups can be written well-- the clues end up either too transparent or too vague.
Logan Anbinder
University of Maryland '12

User avatar
Taper or die. Can you do any less?
Rikku
Posts: 276
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 2:42 pm

Re: General Discussion

Post by Taper or die. Can you do any less? » Wed Mar 02, 2016 9:38 pm

adosreme wrote:The emphasis on musicals was not specifically designed to be female-friendly. What I did intentionally do in this regard was try and ensure that approximately 50% of the questions were about women.
Something that was noticed and was extremely appreciated.
Aayush Rajasekaran (he/him or she/her)
University of Waterloo, 2016
University of Waterloo, 2018

User avatar
Silverman
Lulu
Posts: 89
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:58 pm
Location: Pittsburgh

Re: General Discussion

Post by Silverman » Sat Apr 16, 2016 4:52 pm

Is there an ETA for when packets will be posted? I'm not sure if there are any more mirrors to come or not.

Thanks!
Steven Silverman
Unionville High School '13
Carnegie Mellon University '17

User avatar
TheRhymeMinister
Wakka
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 7:01 pm

Re: General Discussion

Post by TheRhymeMinister » Fri Apr 29, 2016 5:11 pm

There is one mirror of the tournament scheduled for June, and another site has expressed interest in mirroring the tournament in late July/early August. Once those mirrors happen (or are confirmed to not be happening), and barring any additional interest in mirrors, I will post the set.
The Nick Penner
Waterloo Collegiate Institute '10
Carleton University '15

Locked