Answerlines for Character Names

[whatamidoinghere]

Forgive me if this topic has been done before. As I've read through past sets and worked on others I've come to notice that there are seemingly two ways of making an answer line about a character in, say, a book or play where both the first and last names are acceptable. For example:

ANSWER: Nick Carraway [accept either underlined name]

versus

ANSWER: Nick Carraway [or Nick Carraway]

I'm personally of the opinion that the latter answer line style is easier to write and read since it does not require a clunky moderator instruction in brackets, but it also seems like both styles of answer lines are common throughout. How do people go about writing answer lines for character names, and what style should be done if we want to standardize the character answer line?

Edit: I have realized after some thinking that this would be better in the Theory section. If a mod could move this post over there I'd greatly appreciate it.

[CPiGuy]

I personally find the "clunky" moderator instruction less clunky than printing the same answerline twice; I also think this moderator instruction is perfectly clear. In general, I think giving fewer distinct instructions is better; I prefer "accept either underlined portion" for the same reason I would prefer

directed acyclic graphs [or DAGs or acyclic digraphs or acyclic directed graphs; prompt on any partial answers]

to

directed acyclic graphs [or DAGs or acyclic digraphs or acyclic directed graphs; prompt on graphs or directed graphs or digraphs or acyclic graphs]

[ThisIsMyUsername]

I personally find the "clunky" moderator instruction less clunky than printing the same answerline twice; I also think this moderator instruction is perfectly clear. In general, I think giving fewer distinct instructions is better; I prefer "accept either underlined portion" for the same reason I would prefer

directed acyclic graphs [or DAGs or acyclic digraphs or acyclic directed graphs; prompt on any partial answers]

to

directed acyclic graphs [or DAGs or acyclic digraphs or acyclic directed graphs; prompt on graphs or directed graphs or digraphs or acyclic graphs]

The second of these is much better. In this situtation, it is preferable not to put a moderator in the position of trying to figure out what counts as a promptable "partial answer." It is much better to spell out what the moderator should prompt on, so they don't have to make any judgment calls. This is not comparable to the character name situation, in which it is quite clear what "accept either underlined name" means.

[1992 in spaceflight]

I personally find the "clunky" moderator instruction less clunky than printing the same answerline twice; I also think this moderator instruction is perfectly clear. In general, I think giving fewer distinct instructions is better; I prefer "accept either underlined portion" for the same reason I would prefer

directed acyclic graphs [or DAGs or acyclic digraphs or acyclic directed graphs; prompt on any partial answers]

to

directed acyclic graphs [or DAGs or acyclic digraphs or acyclic directed graphs; prompt on graphs or directed graphs or digraphs or acyclic graphs]

The second of these is much better. In this situtation, it is preferable not to put a moderator in the position of trying to figure out what counts as a promptable "partial answer." It is much better to spell out what the moderator should prompt on, so they don't have to make any judgment calls. This is not comparable to the character name situation, in which it is quite clear what "accept either underlined name" means.

This is why, back when I wrote for HSAPQ, we did this with our answerlines, and why I've kept it up for every independent set I've ever edited for since then.

[Cody]

I personally find the "clunky" moderator instruction less clunky than printing the same answerline twice; I also think this moderator instruction is perfectly clear. In general, I think giving fewer distinct instructions is better; I prefer "accept either underlined portion" for the same reason I would prefer

directed acyclic graphs [or DAGs or acyclic digraphs or acyclic directed graphs; prompt on any partial answers]

to

directed acyclic graphs [or DAGs or acyclic digraphs or acyclic directed graphs; prompt on graphs or directed graphs or digraphs or acyclic graphs]

John is correct, and this is also not how you write prompts.

directed acyclic graphs [or DAGs or acyclic digraphs or acyclic directed graphs; prompt on directed graphs or acyclic graphs or digraphs]

Forgive me if this topic has been done before. As I've read through past sets and worked on others I've come to notice that there are seemingly two ways of making an answer line about a character in, say, a book or play where both the first and last names are acceptable. For example:

ANSWER: Nick Carraway [accept either underlined name]

versus

ANSWER: Nick Carraway [or Nick Carraway]

I'm personally of the opinion that the latter answer line style is easier to write and read since it does not require a clunky moderator instruction in brackets, but it also seems like both styles of answer lines are common throughout. How do people go about writing answer lines for character names, and what style should be done if we want to standardize the character answer line?

The latter is better. For one, it provides immediate clarity for judging without the moderator needing to read and interpret instructions. For two, it promotes consistency across a set -- e.g. the instructions are similar for characters where first or last name is acceptable and for characters where last name is insufficient (Seymour Glass [or Seymour Glass; prompt on Glass]).

This form was mandated (slightly differently), for example, by the HSAPQ style guide, e.g.:

11. For tossups on sports teams, make sure to indicate that both the city name and franchise nickname are acceptable, using alternate answers (do not use "accept either"). For instance:
_Milwaukee_ Brewers [or _Brewers_]

Treat names with two equally acceptable parts similarly:
Malala _Yousafzai_ [or _Malala_]

In dealing with this sort of answer, there is no time when it is appropriate to simply write "accept either" or "accept either underlined part"; all acceptable answers must be explicitly indicated.

edit: fixing parens

[Carlos Be]

ANSWER: Nick Carraway [accept either underlined name]

versus

ANSWER: Nick Carraway [or Nick Carraway]

Another advantage of the second form is that it can be hard to tell the difference between Nick Carraway and Nick Carraway, particularly if you woke up early to staff a tournament or have been reading questions for several rounds.

[Cody]

ANSWER: Nick Carraway [accept either underlined name]

versus

ANSWER: Nick Carraway [or Nick Carraway]

Another advantage of the second form is that it can be hard to tell the difference between Nick Carraway and Nick Carraway, particularly if you woke up early to staff a tournament or have been reading questions for several rounds.

I'll give a hotter take: there is no difference between Nick Carraway and Nick Carraway. Some writers may think there is, and experienced moderators may be used to the convention, but both answerlines (sans supplementary instructions) require both Nick & Carraway because non-consecutive bolding & underlining is the same thing as consecutive bolding and underlining. See, for example, any answerlines that require a first initial + surname to be correct, including Seymour Glass, Indira Gandhi, and Percy Bysshe Shelley.

[CPiGuy]

I'll give a hotter take: there is no difference between Nick Carraway and Nick Carraway. Some writers may think there is, and experienced moderators may be used to the convention, but both answerlines (sans supplementary instructions) require both Nick & Carraway because non-consecutive bolding & underlining is the same thing as consecutive bolding and underlining. See, for example, any answerlines that require a first initial + surname to be correct, including Seymour Glass, Indira Gandhi, and Percy Bysshe Shelley.

Isn't that the purpose of saying "accept either underlined portion" -- to explicitly indicate that it is not the same?

[StockierAsp9634]

I'll give a hotter take: there is no difference between Nick Carraway and Nick Carraway. Some writers may think there is, and experienced moderators may be used to the convention, but both answerlines (sans supplementary instructions) require both Nick & Carraway because non-consecutive bolding & underlining is the same thing as consecutive bolding and underlining. See, for example, any answerlines that require a first initial + surname to be correct, including Seymour Glass, Indira Gandhi, and Percy Bysshe Shelley.

Isn't that the purpose of saying "accept either underlined portion" -- to explicitly indicate that it is not the same?

I agree. In this case, the moderator could take Nick, Carraway, or Nick Carraway.

User was reminded to enable a signature -- mods