2017 (This) Tournament is a Crime Specific Discussion
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2017 11:59 pm
Discuss specific question content here.
Sponsored by the Partnership for Academic Competition Excellence (Twitter: @PACENSC)
https://hsquizbowl.org/forums/
I can tell you what my teammates did on these questions.Eddie wrote:Hi everyone,
- What, and on which clue, did people neg Mount Ida with?
- What, and on which clue, did people neg introduction of fire to humanity with?
- What, and on which clue, did people neg snake (in Chinese mythology) with? I'm pretty sure I already know the answer to this one, but I'd like to confirm with empirical data.
- The bonus part on accordion had an abnormally high get rate. What did people think was especially easy about this?
There really aren't that many truly contemporary composers that come up, and John Adams is obviously one of them. I think most people are aware that there's a John Luther Adams, although I'm not sure if I'd really call that frauding.Eddie wrote:The Music/Opera bonus part on Adams had an abnormally high get rate. Did many people know this or was it fraudable (e.g. "contemporary composer" + "shares his surname")?
The Ununtiable Twine wrote:Can you post the tossup on vibrational modes, please?
Round 6, (This) Tournament is a Crime wrote: 16. Monique Tirion showed that a simple uniform potential models these entities effectively in proteins. The inversion of the “bullet” configuration of GroEL was shown to closely resemble one of these entities numbered “18”. When modelling proteins as a Gaussian network, these entities are described by the matrices obtained from decomposing the Kirchhoff matrix. Analyzing these entities is effectively equivalent to molecular dynamics at the low-temperature limit. These entities can be solved for by solving the secular equation for a (*) mass weighted Hessian. Additionally these entities can be solved by assuming solutions of the form of the exponential of i times omega times t and plugging them into the equations of motion. For a non-linear molecule with N atoms, there exist 3N-6 of these entities, examples of which include scissoring and symmetric stretches. For 10 points, name this sort of motion where every part of a system oscillates at the same frequency.
ANSWER: normal modes [accept vibrational modes; prompt on vibrational degrees of freedom]
Cheynem wrote:Eddie, I'd probably like to see the whole 1950's tossup before judging any further.
Round 5, (This) Tournament is a Crime wrote: 20. This decade saw the release of a two-part instrumental single whose second part features a saxophone solo by Clifford Scott and ends with its composer’s signature organ. The I - vi - IV - V [“one six four five”] chord progression is sometimes nicknamed for this decade, during which Sam Philips founded Sun Records. A self-titled single released in this decade popularized its namesake’s beat, which is basically a 3 - 2 son clave [“three two” sohn KLAH-vay] rhythm. Due to overcrowding at its Cleveland venue, an Alan Freed-organized concert in this decade was prematurely shut down after just one song. In this decade, (*) Pat Boone’s cover of “Tutti Frutti” beat out Little Richard’s original recording to chart at No. 12. This decade witnessed the Moondog Coronation Ball as well as the first sales of the Gibson Les Paul and the Fender Stratocaster. The release of Bill Haley & His Comets’s “Rock Around the Clock” in this decade is said to have brought the genre into the mainstream. For 10 points, name this decade in which Elvis Presley released his first single.
ANSWER: 1950s [or the fifties; or obvious equivalents]
I tried several approaches to this subject matter and the decade answer line was the best way I could incorporate all of the important details and events (I'd already done guitar for EFT, and I couldn't come up with enough material on a single individual / song / U.S. state / year / what-have-you). I think simply moving down the Sun Records clue could solve both of the issues that you're talking about (clue misplacement and narrowing down the answer space too early).Cheynem wrote:The beginning mostly just suffers I think from the misplaced Sun Records clue, but you've got Pat Boone and Little Richard right out of power--I think most people are aware of when they were most relevant musically. I liked what this tossup was trying to do and everything in the tossup is super important, but I'm not sure the decade was the optimal approach to ask about it.
cyclohexane wrote:Could I see the tossup on trumpets in movies? I negged this tossup on the Bernard Hermann clue on Taxi Driver with saxophone.
Hi Alex,Round 3, (This) Tournament is a Crime wrote: 14. About a minute into the title theme of Elmer Bernstein's score to The Magnificent Seven, the main melody is reprised by a solo for this instrument. A pipe organ solo is interrupted by short repeated-note passages for this instrument at the start of Jerry Goldsmith's score to Patton. This instrument plays the main theme in Goldsmith's score to Chinatown, as well as in Bernard Herrmann's score to Taxi Driver. A wistful unaccompanied solo for this instrument plays at the very start of The (*) Godfather. Four of these instruments introduce the title theme in Raiders of the Lost Ark. This instrument plays the rising motif in the opening sunrise scene of 2001: A Space Odyssey - a theme taken from Richard Strauss's Also sprach Zarathustra. For 10 points, name this high-pitched brass instrument.
ANSWER: trumpet
If I remember correctly this tossup also occurred in a round where there had been a tossup whose answer line was a decade (the 1990s, I think). I don't think there was anyone trying to decide between 1990s and 1950s, but it did narrow down the possible answer that much more.Eddie wrote: I tried several approaches to this subject matter and the decade answer line was the best way I could incorporate all of the important details and events (I'd already done guitar for EFT, and I couldn't come up with enough material on a single individual / song / U.S. state / year / what-have-you). I think simply moving down the Sun Records clue could solve both of the issues that you're talking about (clue misplacement and narrowing down the answer space too early).
The Holocaust is so important to the film's premise that it literally appears in the film's English title: Holocaust & Pornography in Israel.An excerpt from the second link above wrote:Libsker ends “Stalags” with footage of high-school classes touring Auschwitz, their principal reading sections of “The Dollhouse” as if it were a nonfiction account of what transpired inside its walls.
The clue was about prostaglandin D2 synthase; I didn't realize that beta 2-transferrin does the same thing, so I'll modify the leadin to rule it out.The Quest for the Historical Mukherjesus wrote:I'm curious about the leadin to this prostaglandins question. The assay I've seen used to determine whether a given unknown clear fluid is CSF is the beta-2-transferrin assay, which as far as I know isn't part of the prostaglandin synthesis pathway. Is there another test I'm unaware of?
We in fact did do research on this. I was not part of the group that made this ruling, but I can confirm a significant amount of time was spent weighing this protest. Hopefully the person who ruled on your protest can give the rationale.That's rather galling, given that it appears that whoever decided the protest did absolutely no research before doing so. (If that person wants to disagree, I'll point him to the fact that the word "Holocaust" appears in literally the first search entry on Google when you Google "Ari Libsker" "Stalags.")
Do not do this. What happened at HIT was an anomaly and a function of Alex Fregeau being completely new to writing, running a tournament etc. If anyone / a team tried to pull this at a tournament I'm running, they get a stern warning for attempting to relitigate the protest.I realize that my protest was probably decided by someone different from the person mentioned in Max's post who resolved the protest at HIT. However, as someone apparently did at HIT, perhaps I should have hunted down the protest decider at TTiaC and kept badgering him until he agreed with my protest interpretation? Is that how quiz bowl protests work these days?
While I'm excited that people knew about this, I'll defend its placement as a clue: I can't really think of any widely read novels in translation that haven't come up in quizbowl before (as opposed to something like A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, which I was comfortable making a giveaway despite its rarity in quizbowl since I know it to be extremely widely read), and I don't think Madonna of the Fur Coat qualifies. I only found out about it from reading recent book reviews and thought that it could serve the dual purpose of allowing people to buzz on Maureen Freeley (the pre-eminent Pamuk translator)'s name.ElysiaJW wrote:I don't know how well-known it is in the US, but Madonna in a Fur Coat is very popular right now in the UK and has been for a while - there are massive posters for it on the tube - and so this question got powered on the first clue in both rooms at our site.
Yeah, I figured that that would be a pretty easy clue, but still harder than the actual names of Plan B and the pill, so I put it just out of power to smooth the tossup's gradient out.The other one that immediately comes to mind is that the clue ordering on the TU on contraceptives felt a little off - I buzzed on "breakthrough bleeding" and was only a word out of power. I am definitely not a scientist and recognised none of the clues before it and after it only the very last giveaways; I got it from having taken oral contraceptives and thus been subject to the health warnings.
So, first, "these entities can be solved" seems like it's missing a "for" afterwards, because otherwise it sounds like you're talking about a set of equations. With regard to the rest of this sentence, I think it would be useful to add that the actual determination of the frequencies corresponding to the normal modes is achieved by finding the eigenvalues of the mass-spring constant matrix. Otherwise, just plugging them into the equations of motion... doesn't actually do anything. Having now seen this question, I realize that I was thrown by the fact that it was mostly clues from chemistry rather than normal modes as I'm used to seeing them in physics with a series of masses coupled to springs. If that's the direction you want to go, I think it makes a lot of sense to say that they are typically determined by Raman scattering.Additionally these entities can be solved by assuming solutions of the form of the exponential of i times omega times t and plugging them into the equations of motion. For a non-linear molecule with N atoms, there exist 3N-6 of these entities, examples of which include scissoring and symmetric stretches. For 10 points, name this sort of motion where every part of a system oscillates at the same frequency.
This question seemed fine to me; I can't remember the initial clues but for sure once you start talking about the definition of the Legendre symbol, there's only one place that could go.CPiGuy wrote:I didn't really like the tossup on "modulo" -- it seemed really awkwardly constructed, and had I been playing and not staffing I probably would have figured out what was going on right around the powermark but not been able to buzz until the giveaway -- if I were writing that tossup, I'd probably make the answerline "modular congruence" and make it things about, like "if a and b have this relationship to each other with respect to a prime p" and so on for the clues.
Alexia Massalin introduced the "super-" form of this practice in a paper that discusses various techniques in evaluating the signum function. Values are recomputed rather than reloading them in a form of this technique called rematerialization; it is often seen as a form of this technique known as "hoisting," in which invariants are moved outside of the body of certain constructs. Expressions are replaced by their known values in constant folding, a type of this technique that along with strength (*) reduction comprises the "peephole" forms of this technique. This technique often converts a recursive tail call into an iterative loop, and loops themselves may unwound as part of this technique, though an increase in space is needed. Compilers often perform, for 10 points, what process of improving the efficiency of a computer program?Snap Wexley wrote:I suppose as long as I'm here, I'd appreciate it if someone could post the above tossup as well as the one on "optimization."
Yeah, I mean, I liked a lot of the content and think the clues were pretty good -- I just don't like how "modulo" got clued as an operation when I feel like a lot of math people tend to think of modular congruence as a relationship (and that would also make the tossup less clunky). Now that I look back at it, it seems less bad than it did on first glance, though.Snap Wexley wrote:This question seemed fine to me; I can't remember the initial clues but for sure once you start talking about the definition of the Legendre symbol, there's only one place that could go.CPiGuy wrote:I didn't really like the tossup on "modulo" -- it seemed really awkwardly constructed, and had I been playing and not staffing I probably would have figured out what was going on right around the powermark but not been able to buzz until the giveaway -- if I were writing that tossup, I'd probably make the answerline "modular congruence" and make it things about, like "if a and b have this relationship to each other with respect to a prime p" and so on for the clues.
This Tournament Is a Crime wrote:If a polynomial equation Q has a root for this operation applied to the equation with respect to a prime p, then there will exist a unique root for Q for this operation applied to a power of p by Hensel's lifting lemma. An odd prime p is expressible as the sum of two squares if and only if a form of this operation applied to p yields one according to one of many results called Fermat's Theorem. For two numbers a and p, a raised to p minus 1 divided by two applied to this operation of p gives the (*) Legendre symbol, giving conditions for when the golden theorem can be satisfied. Both linear and quadratic residue classes are defined using this operation. Wilson's theorem states that a number n is prime if and only if n minus one factorial is congruent to negative applied to this function n. A percent sign is used to represent, for 10 points, what operation that gives the remainder after division?
ANSWER: modulo [prompt on remainder]
"Operation" seems pretty clear to me. You can certainly call it a relationship, but I think anything that you actually compute is definitely an operation, any other descriptor notwithstanding.CPiGuy wrote:Yeah, I mean, I liked a lot of the content and think the clues were pretty good -- I just don't like how "modulo" got clued as an operation when I feel like a lot of math people tend to think of modular congruence as a relationship (and that would also make the tossup less clunky). Now that I look back at it, it seems less bad than it did on first glance, though.
Yeah, that's fair -- I guess it just didn't mesh with how I thought of it and so I committed the "I didn't like how it was done so it's wrong" fallacy (a close relative of the "I thought this clue was easy so it shouldn't have gotten 15 points" fallacy). I still would have written the tossup differently, but it works as is.Snap Wexley wrote:"Operation" seems pretty clear to me. You can certainly call it a relationship, but I think anything that you actually compute is definitely an operation, any other descriptor notwithstanding.CPiGuy wrote:Yeah, I mean, I liked a lot of the content and think the clues were pretty good -- I just don't like how "modulo" got clued as an operation when I feel like a lot of math people tend to think of modular congruence as a relationship (and that would also make the tossup less clunky). Now that I look back at it, it seems less bad than it did on first glance, though.
edit: I think you're conflating "modulo" and "congruence" here.
I'll look forward to hearing that rationale.Ike wrote:We in fact did do research on this. I was not part of the group that made this ruling, but I can confirm a significant amount of time was spent weighing this protest. Hopefully the person who ruled on your protest can give the rationale.That's rather galling, given that it appears that whoever decided the protest did absolutely no research before doing so. (If that person wants to disagree, I'll point him to the fact that the word "Holocaust" appears in literally the first search entry on Google when you Google "Ari Libsker" "Stalags.")
I was being sarcastic, though I do understand why you would want to reiterate this rule (which I agree with).Ike wrote:Do not do this. What happened at HIT was an anomaly and a function of Alex Fregeau being completely new to writing, running a tournament etc. If anyone / a team tried to pull this at a tournament I'm running, they get a stern warning for attempting to relitigate the protest.I realize that my protest was probably decided by someone different from the person mentioned in Max's post who resolved the protest at HIT. However, as someone apparently did at HIT, perhaps I should have hunted down the protest decider at TTiaC and kept badgering him until he agreed with my protest interpretation? Is that how quiz bowl protests work these days?
I don't know if I'm being included in "the group that made this ruling," but I certainly did pass along to Auroni that according to this New York Times article, "the Stalags were named for the World War II prisoner-of-war camps in which they were set." I haven't seen the documentary, and this was the first reputable-looking source my Google search at the time turned up.Charbroil wrote:I'll look forward to hearing that rationale.Ike wrote:We in fact did do research on this. I was not part of the group that made this ruling, but I can confirm a significant amount of time was spent weighing this protest. Hopefully the person who ruled on your protest can give the rationale.That's rather galling, given that it appears that whoever decided the protest did absolutely no research before doing so. (If that person wants to disagree, I'll point him to the fact that the word "Holocaust" appears in literally the first search entry on Google when you Google "Ari Libsker" "Stalags.")
As another person who was in that room and helped research the protest, Wikipedia (not that good of a source, I know), claims that Jews never actually appeared in Stalag fiction because it would be "too taboo"; it also explicitly talks about British and American soldiers in POW camps, as does the aforementioned NYT article (which is propbably a better source). However, I think that things like that second NYT article show that perhaps "concentration camp" is a general term that includes "POW camp", and so Charles should have been prompted (not based on, like, substantive clue content, just because the set of things described by the term "concentration camp" is a superset of the set of things described by the term "POW camp").Beast Mode wrote:I don't know if I'm being included in "the group that made this ruling," but I certainly did pass along to Auroni that according to this New York Times article, "the Stalags were named for the World War II prisoner-of-war camps in which they were set." I haven't seen the documentary, and this was the first reputable-looking source my Google search at the time turned up.Charbroil wrote:I'll look forward to hearing that rationale.Ike wrote:We in fact did do research on this. I was not part of the group that made this ruling, but I can confirm a significant amount of time was spent weighing this protest. Hopefully the person who ruled on your protest can give the rationale.That's rather galling, given that it appears that whoever decided the protest did absolutely no research before doing so. (If that person wants to disagree, I'll point him to the fact that the word "Holocaust" appears in literally the first search entry on Google when you Google "Ari Libsker" "Stalags.")
However, I'm now looking at this other New York Times article, which opens "In early-1960s Israel pornographic, possibly anti-Semitic novels that detailed sensational tales of the torture and rape of male concentration camp prisoners by curvaceous female Nazi guards rapidly rose from marginal pulp reading to mass-market popularity."
I should've done more digging in the first place, since the first article even says "the movie contends that Stalag pornography was but a popular extension of the writings of K. Tzetnik" (an author I know of from a Holocaust lit class). If I'm the one responsible for denying you a top-bracket berth, I'm very sorry for that.
My rationale is just that it's a totally different thing than mathematical optimization but maybe that's too harsh. Anyway, it was good to see a question on this topic.Ike wrote:Jerry, that does seem awfully restrictive to require compiler for compiler optimization, can I ask your rationale for requiring it?
I don't know which Wikipedia article you looked at, but the one on Stalag fiction describes the genre this way:CPiGuy wrote:As another person who was in that room and helped research the protest, Wikipedia (not that good of a source, I know), claims that Jews never actually appeared in Stalag fiction because it would be "too taboo"; it also explicitly talks about British and American soldiers in POW camps...Beast Mode wrote:I don't know if I'm being included in "the group that made this ruling," but I certainly did pass along to Auroni that according to this New York Times article, "the Stalags were named for the World War II prisoner-of-war camps in which they were set." I haven't seen the documentary, and this was the first reputable-looking source my Google search at the time turned up.Charbroil wrote:I'll look forward to hearing that rationale.Ike wrote:We in fact did do research on this. I was not part of the group that made this ruling, but I can confirm a significant amount of time was spent weighing this protest. Hopefully the person who ruled on your protest can give the rationale.That's rather galling, given that it appears that whoever decided the protest did absolutely no research before doing so. (If that person wants to disagree, I'll point him to the fact that the word "Holocaust" appears in literally the first search entry on Google when you Google "Ari Libsker" "Stalags.")
However, I'm now looking at this other New York Times article, which opens "In early-1960s Israel pornographic, possibly anti-Semitic novels that detailed sensational tales of the torture and rape of male concentration camp prisoners by curvaceous female Nazi guards rapidly rose from marginal pulp reading to mass-market popularity."
I should've done more digging in the first place, since the first article even says "the movie contends that Stalag pornography was but a popular extension of the writings of K. Tzetnik" (an author I know of from a Holocaust lit class). If I'm the one responsible for denying you a top-bracket berth, I'm very sorry for that.
It's also worth noting that a small number of British and American POWs were sent to concentration camps. This article describes POWs sent to Buchenwald and Dachau while this one describes prisoners sent to Mauthausen. (Mauthausen was also where the "bullet decree" regarding POWs that appears in a later clue in this tossup was implemented).Purported to be translations of English-language books by prisoners in concentration camps.
It looks like ACF rule H.11 would've allowed Auroni to delegate it to us, but since he didn't, there's no question that we were overeager and out of line in volunteering our findings. I didn't think we were actually resolving the protest; my thinking was that it couldn't hurt for Auroni and Bruce and whoever else to have those findings. This was wrong thinking, and I'm sorry for acting unprofessionally.Charbroil wrote: Beyond all of this, why were you and Saul the ones doing research on this protest? Isn't the rule for protests that the person deciding them doesn't know which teams are involved? I don't question your honesty (or Saul's), but having the moderator and scorekeeper for the match under protest do the research to determine the protest seems to contradict that rule.
Yeah, I'd like to second this -- it seems we did the wrong thing, and I apologize. I was under the impression that moderators/other staff were expected to resolve/research protests before bringing them to the TD; I am no longer under that impression and won't do it again. Having said that, it seems that the correct resolution to the protest is probably that you should be prompted on "concentration camps" because they're a superset of "POW camps"; would you agree with that?Beast Mode wrote:It looks like ACF rule H.11 would've allowed Auroni to delegate it to us, but since he didn't, there's no question that we were overeager and out of line in volunteering our findings. I didn't think we were actually resolving the protest; my thinking was that it couldn't hurt for Auroni and Bruce and whoever else to have those findings. This was wrong thinking, and I'm sorry for acting unprofessionally.Charbroil wrote: Beyond all of this, why were you and Saul the ones doing research on this protest? Isn't the rule for protests that the person deciding them doesn't know which teams are involved? I don't question your honesty (or Saul's), but having the moderator and scorekeeper for the match under protest do the research to determine the protest seems to contradict that rule.
EDIT: We never told Auroni who the teams involved were, but obviously the above still stands.
But this isn't true - concentration camps and POW camps serve distinctly different purposes. Concentration camps are used to place a number of people belonging to some general category in the same place for political purposes, whereas POW camps are used to hold captured enemy combatants and/or civilians. It appears to me, superficially, that the lead-in can refer to either of these - thus, Charles' buzz should be straight-up accepted, particularly as some of the same institutions served both purposes here!CPiGuy wrote:Yeah, I'd like to second this -- it seems we did the wrong thing, and I apologize. I was under the impression that moderators/other staff were expected to resolve/research protests before bringing them to the TD; I am no longer under that impression and won't do it again. Having said that, it seems that the correct resolution to the protest is probably that you should be prompted on "concentration camps" because they're a superset of "POW camps"; would you agree with that?Beast Mode wrote:It looks like ACF rule H.11 would've allowed Auroni to delegate it to us, but since he didn't, there's no question that we were overeager and out of line in volunteering our findings. I didn't think we were actually resolving the protest; my thinking was that it couldn't hurt for Auroni and Bruce and whoever else to have those findings. This was wrong thinking, and I'm sorry for acting unprofessionally.Charbroil wrote: Beyond all of this, why were you and Saul the ones doing research on this protest? Isn't the rule for protests that the person deciding them doesn't know which teams are involved? I don't question your honesty (or Saul's), but having the moderator and scorekeeper for the match under protest do the research to determine the protest seems to contradict that rule.
EDIT: We never told Auroni who the teams involved were, but obviously the above still stands.