And by the way, Shayna & Chocolate: while in excess I agree “Blech!” is appropriate… a fine cigar once a month, with a port sherry or fine Islay malt… is heaven. Heaven, I tell ya.
- Rick
Let me state at the outset here that I am only replying because I enjoy a good debate and the challenge of matching wits with you, Bricker. If I wasn’t teamed up with my sister, I would completely withdraw our answers as a show of good faith that my reply here is not about winning or losing. Although since I’ve already declined to accept any prizes, that should, in and of itself, make that obvious.
Bricker said:
Well, I see your points, but they still don’t make any sense. 
Yes, you made my point. In that case you asked what her diagnosis was. In the case of poor Jud, you asked if he was alive or dead. Knowing the housefly question came from a rhyme was worth half credit. Knowing poor Jud was in Oklahoma! should also have been worth half credit.
In which case I could argue that if one had answered the question about poor Jud as, “No, Jud’s only being taunted by Curly. He’s still alive,” it would illustrate one knew the play “AND it answers the predicate question-within-a-question.” Therefore, the answers “it’s a rhyme” and “it’s from Oklahoma!” become equally weighted replies - again, half a point.
Absolutely true, and with that I agree. Therefore, if someone had indeed answered the question about Jud by simply saying, “No,” I wouldn’t expect you to give that any credit either. But if they don’t at least include that within their answer, then you can’t really say they’ve answered what you asked at all because simply saying Oklahoma!, while it does indicate an awareness of the origins of the song, doesn’t indicate that they know anything about Jud’s fate.
And the butter question really isn’t a “fair” example, because the mere inclusion of how to clarify butter does, in and of itelf, imply an affirmative to the predicate question. But if I don’t tell you that Curly was only describing Jud’s death, there can be no inference made that it “show[s] an understanding of what [that song] entails,” (a fabrication made by one of the characters).
AHA - but there is, in fact, a hidden predicate. The mere inclusion of that statement within a game wherein we’re supposed to identify answers, causes the reader to infer, “what is this?” There’s your hidden predicate.
Wouldn’t that again make my point? Couldn’t the same be said for “not getting a nod from the quizmaster for knowing Oklahoma!? The gravamen of the question is knowing [the fate of Jud]?”
I’m sorry, I have to interrupt you here on this one. You thought “Poor Jud is dead” was more obscure than, “And homeless near a thousand homes I stood, and near a thousand tables pined and wanted food.”? Or more obscure than, “Hello, I am Edmond. Along with Peter, Susan, and Lucy, I discovered an oddity in one of the pieces of furniture in the house.”? Why would The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, or a Wordsworth poem be any more recognizable than the Rogers and Hammerstein classic, Oklahoma!? For that matter, there are many questions within these truly wonderful challenges that are quite, well, challenging, because of their relative obscurity.
And correct me if I’m wrong, but I kindof thought that’s what you were going for. Why else post a baroque painting with only the hint that the artist was known for his use of light (gee, that narrows it down - LOL) and expect anyone without art knowledge to be familiar with the work of someone lesser known than, say, Michelango or Rembrandt? But Rogers and Hammerstein is too obscure? Please tell me you were kidding.
As opposed to having us go “astray in search of an actual person” named Edmond who was all set to get married and become the captain of [his] own commercial vessel, etc.? Really. My sister asked me if I thought you were talking about a real person or a fictional character. Not ever having read The Count of Monte Cristo myself, I didn’t know, and didn’t want to assume anything. Especially given that one of your “Edmond/Edmund/Edvard” questions was, in fact, about a real person (which I happened to know without researching, btw - “The Scream” is one of my favorite paintings).
Rick, you purposefully frame many, many of your questions in such a way as to befuddle we participants as to their origin. And we like that. That’s not a complaint. I’m merely having a hard time grasping the assertion that you wished to not mislead us.
Given how clear it is that you are trying to make these more difficult as each challenge is posted by putting “twists” into them, I’m still having a hard time swallowing that one, Rick. You’ll forgive me if I 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=“1” face="V
Shayna, dear Shayna, light of my life…
Not every ring should be a brass ring. But there need to be a few in there to give hope to the carousel riders.
You’re quite correct when you suggest that my worries about Jud’s difficulty seem disingenuous when compared to the various Eds and the Vermeer. But Jud was stuck in there as an easier question in the first place. The proportion of questions that people read and get right away is important, I think… It’s got to be enough that they’re intrigued, and wish to continue, but not so much that the whole thing is solved in twenty minutes. I’ve admittedly been tinkering with this each time… but the point I’m making is that Jud was a relative softball, and it was appropriate to worry that he’d be too hard while at the same time tossing out oblique references to The Faerie Queen.
The “reversing the call” business isn’t going to happen here – before, my proposed answer to a math problem was wrong, pure and simple. I had to change it. Here, I was overly generous in grading the answer to a question, which wasn’t wrong… just overly generous.
Well, of course!
In any event, I agree the fault was mine; I should have realized that my interim change prompted a change in the way I graded… I’ll do better next time.
And yes - there will be a next time!
- Rick
Thank you Bricker for another great challenge! The pleasure I get out of these is twofold:
a) Figuring out which answers I know off the top of my head (in this case, it would have been about half)
and b) The “scavenger hunt” where you have to try to find answers using reference materials. (I personally think knowing how to find out information is just as important, if not more, than knowing it beforehand.)
Bricker, if you decide to reverse yourself and declare Shayna the champion, I will understand. My answer to “Pore Jud” is probably insufficient. (I will say in my defense that my parents had the album of the musical, and that I listened to it several times as a child and was aware of the story.)
Looking forward eagerly to the next Bricker challenge!
- Blackjack
- Herman Wouk
- Cigars
- Ball spotted where it went out of bounds. Possession to the team who last had control of the ball.
- Just one. The “royal” isn’t a different hand, just higher face value than the regular.
- Don’t get the question
- Annuals are plants that bloom seasonally, Perennials bloom all year long.
- Checkmate
- The “Chicago 7”
- 99
- aluminum (bauxite ore)
- Easter
- Kennedy
- Fulton’s - Steamboat. Seward’s - Alaska.
- Emmy’s, Cleo’s
- Watergate judges.
- Schultz
- TV Show “Emergency”
- Victim - John Garfield
- Apollo 11 landing site, the Moon.
- Swallowed a fly (don’t know why).
- Navigation lights for ships or aircraft. (Red on right, vessel is inbound to you).
- Alfred Hitchcock.
- Crank is homemade methamphetamine, worse than a prank phone call.
- San Quentin
- Nancy Cartwright.
- Yes. Bill of Rights
- Sleet is frozen before it falls.
- Frederick Forsyth.
- The team that had the pigskin gets possession at that point – unless, of course, the offense fumbled on fourth down, but did not get enough yardage for a first down. Also, a ball fumbled out of bounds in the end zone goes to the other team as a touchback on its 20.
- 40
- Perennials come up every year; annuals come up only once.
- What an understatement. “This guy” is Sherlock Holmes.
- En passant.
11.They were the Chicago 7. - He was the Count of Monte Cristo, a novel by Dumas.
- They are the 4 Pevensie children who discover that a wardrobe contains an entrance to another world in “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe,” the first of the Narnia books.
- 99
- Aluminum
- 60 pi
- Easter?
- The novel’s narrator, and I forget his name.
24.Robert A. Heinlein. - The were both immensely successful. Fulton’s Folly was a name for an early steamboat, and Seward’s Folly was the purchase of Alaska in 1867.
- Emmies and I don’t know.
- The same last name, Schulz
- I would hazard he was born in a leap year.
- On the moon.
- Alfred Hitchcock
- Crank is the street name for methamphetamine, supposedly a potent form of speed. It didn’t do a damn thing for me the only time I tried it.
- I would say yes, but then I’ve never seen The Damn Yankees.
- Bilbo Baggins?
- Wabash Valley Correctional Instution (informally known as the Carlisle prison) in Indiana. If you want a federal prison, the Terre Haute pentitary in Indiana.
- Yes.
- Not a damn thing as far as I’m concerned.
- Bruce Springsteen, The Boss.
I answered these off the top of my head without looking at other posts.
The Coyote gnaws …
but he does not swallow.
No, no, no! You won fair and square based on the rules and on the quizmaster’s final ruling of what he found acceptable. We are happy to congratulate you for your fine effort! As stated before, I just like going head-to-head with Bricker because he keeps me on my toes (and he almost always whoops my butt! :D)
Besides, for all I know we may have missed something I wasn’t aware of (like maybe the golf question which we answered differently than you did). I’d still have made the same “argument” had we only answered half the questions - it wasn’t about taking the win away from you.
Bricker, are you going to post the scores for the rest of us?
“How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world.” - Anne Frank
I will do complete scores soon.
But it’s good you mentioned the golf question, Shayna – you quoted Rule 19-2, involving player, partner, caddy, or equipment. You needed Rule 19-5, which involves other balls.
Arnold did correctly report the substance of 19-5…
Sorry.
- Rick
Well, Shayna, I’m glad to see harmony still lives amongst the S. Cal dopers.
Bricker, the information I sent you before about claiming the prize is still valid.
Thanks again for the great quizzes!
Official winner of Bricker Challenge #5.
http://www.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/004959.html
Well Rick, again I am greatful, but I am going to make a fuss again. Shyayna has brought up some of my points, but I’ll just start from scratch to be complete.
-
The way you handled the math question is very poor. In the previous mishap you had the wrong answer, and admitted to that when Arnold and I confronted you with it, then you adjusted the grades accordingly. That was just fine, the error had no impact on the process of answering the questons. In this case you bungled the formation of the question itself. The correct way to deal with this is to simply say that the question is invalid and throw it out, especially since when I confronted you about its error right off the bat you denied it. It muddled the test and when you clarified, it made it unfairly biased to those few who happened to read the thread after that clarification. The fair response it to eliminate the question entirely and score based on 49 points. I must say though, that math questions, while tricky to show in text and especially HTML, show play a more prominent role in these challenges, math is important and universal, much more so than biblical references or the inordinate number of literary references. But, math and science are my strong suit opposed to theater and literature which I only know from second hand sources. Just an opinion to keep in mind for future reference.
-
I understand that you are attempting to conceal the questions and keep them creative by phrasing them in unconventional ways, but you must insulate yourself from the pitfalls of this strategy. When you pose a question that elicits a Yes/No or True/False answer you must accept a answer limited to that. You can not offer “a half point” to a correct response that lacked a explanation as in the clarified butter question unless you explicitly instruct the reader to “Explain”. That puts the reader in the unfair position where he is expected to “read you mind” in respect to what you require for any given answer. While there are good and bad answers, there can be no gray area in the correctness.
-
On to the specific challenge at hand. Sorry, but if you discount the belated math enigma it appears that Arnolds answer is simply not adequate. He did not answer the Lola question, as posed it queries if Lola gets what she wants, and according to the song she does, but according to to outcome of the shows she does not, he simply alluded to a couple of singers who sang it, not an answer at all, he much later remidies this, but Shayna and I beat him to the punch by that point. On the second point he left out a important part of the fumble out of bounds question, and in this instance you explicitly state that the answer must be complete. He and Shayna both fail to include the very important instance of when the ball is fumbled into the players own endzone. You drafted this question well (if possibly by accident) because in the NFL Digest of Rules the answers for Anrold and Shayna’s are verbatim from the “fumbles” section, but one must be knowledgable to splice in the “special case” from the “safeties” section. This must be considered if you truly expect a “complete” answer.
Now of course my contentions are self-serving, but none the less just. By my count, neglecting the mathematics debocale, I had 49/49 correct, Arnold had 47/49 and Shayna had 48/49 correct. If you insist on including the mathematics question (however untimely) that adjusts the totals to read: Me 49/50, Arnold 49/50 (including the ammended Lola question) and Shayna 49/50, again by the tie breaker, first submitted, I take the crown. I again officially file a protest.
Sorry, that last part should read:
I forgot Shayna missed the golf question.
I will take Omni’s contentions and protest under advisement.
I am sorry for not having devoted the requisite attention to this, but work has been insane here the past few days. Please bear with me.
- Rick
Well, I personally disagree with a couple of Omniscient’s remarks.
I don’t see how that applies. What if he posted the original questions at a time when I was on vacation? Would that be unfair that someone else got to read the answers before me? Part of the contest is the unfortunate fact that you must be checking the boards when the questions are posted.
What does “beating to the punch” have to do with it? I posted the answers to many questions before Omniscient did. In fact, much of his second post was a direct copy and paste from mine. Does that mean he shouldn’t get credit for any of those answers?
I don’t see why Bricker should have to tailor the challenge to match a particular poster’s knowledge.
Some of your objections are valid, Omniscient, but I think that in your eagerness to find fault with Bricker’s scoring, you go overboard. And if Bricker chooses to accept an arguably incomplete answer as valid, (for example the “Pore Jud” answer), I think that should be his prerogative.
Bricker, I thank you once again for your great trivia challenges. They are very entertaining. If you want to change the decision on the winner, I won’t mind. I only hope that all this sniping about the scoring will not discourage you.
Arnold, Arnold, Arnold,
I’m not trying to nit-pick to death, I’m trying to make the process stronger with some constructive critisism, I think (or hope) that Rick sees that, and I as much as anyone do not want to discourage his effor and time committed to this.
In response to your critisism of my “asking him to tailor it to my knowledge”. I clearly stated that it was just one posters opinion, I’m entitled to that and obviously Rick has and likely will continue to create the quizzes to his strengths, I am just pointing out a fact that he may have overlooked. I believe that the questions are heavily biased towards literature, and in the case that Rick hadn’t intended this, I hope that my mentioning it would be helpful. He most obviously could have intended this and disagrees with my belief of a need for proportionality with other genres of trivia, and as such may disregard my point, but the fact that I mentioned how I felt isn’t being unduly presumptuous, at one point he did ask for opinions on the earlier challenges so I’m obliging.
In retort to your opinion on my contention over the math questions. I understand that the entire process is subject to timing, I was on vacation during Challenges #3 & #4, but see a difference here. The challenge was formed with some effort and its a shame to see it all come down timing on one relatively easy question. Many of the competitors only dedicate one full effort because it takes a significant amount of time, and its a shame to see that they all have a impossible shot at a perfect score when their best effort was already given. It seems to be the best for all involved and manages the inherent inequalities of this format as best possible if only one draft of the questions are submitted.
Obviously, the scoring is all Ricks perogative, and he may do as he sees fit, but that doesn’t make it fair, not that he is under any obligation to be fair. But the concept of the reader deciphering just how elaborate he must be for full credit is prejudicial IMHO, but the final decision is quite obviously at Ricks discretion.
Finally, when I mentioned “beating you to the punch” I was not implying the presentation of that specific answer, I am aware that a number of the answers are pirated and within the rules. I was pointing out that Shayna and I “beat” you to giving complete answers with higher total scores, sorry for the confusion.
Omniscient, to respond to your points:
You wanted to point out that the quizzes more be more “well-rounded” if they had more science questions. That might be true, but usually people go with what their interests are, so that will introduce a bias in the quiz. But you’re right, you should be able to point out what you think would be better questions.
As far as revising a question, I can see how some people might not have time to revise their answers, but I still think that Bricker should have the right to rephrase a question if he thinks it’s improperly phrased the first time. So on this point, I will still disagree with you.
As far as scoring, I think that, to take the example of the “Pore Jud” question, or the “Damn Yankees” question, it would be acceptable for him to assume that if you know the source of the quotation, you probably know the plot behind it. For example, if I asked
“This girl felt so pretty that she had to sing about it, didn’t she?” and someone answered “West Side Story”, I wouldn’t demand that they have to answer “Yes, in West Side Story.” On the other hand, if they said “Candide”, then that would be obviously wrong.
As far as “beating me to the punch”, I misunderstood what you said.
As far as the football question, I don’t know enough about football rules to say if you’re right or not. All I know is that the NFL rules digest that I found at http://www.nfl.com doesn’t mention “Also if fumbled out of the fumbling teams own endzone it is a safety”.
So the way I see it, if you’re right on the football question, you would get 49/50 (for missing the math question, due to timing), I would get 49/50 (for missing the football question), but since you were first, you would be the winner. But that would be up to Bricker.
A ball is dead once it progresses out of bounds. This includes the sidelines bordering the back and sides of the endzone. A example is if a ball is snapped over a punters head and goes out of bounds through the back of the endzone, it is scored a saftey. Another is, if a player fumbles an exchange and the ball bounds across the sideline in the endzone (assuming it is not muffed by a defender, becoming a different situation) it is a safety.
This is why this was a particularly interesting question because of the multiple levels of knowledge needed to solve it. One must understand the difference between a muff and a fumble, ergo deciding who the impetus is caused by, and knowing what defines “out of bounds”. It is a special case, but none the less critical to be complete.
After careful consideration of the points raised by Omni with respect to BC#5, the original decision stands.
Omni assigns error in three general areas, which I will address seriatim.
1. The math question was initially erroneous, and fixing it was prejudicial to the contest’s integrity. Omni is right in suggesting that the “volume of the solid” question was incorrect to begin with.
But unclear or outright-wrong questions are a risk of any such endeavor, especially since the highly trained Bricker Challenge Research and Fact-Checking Staff consists of my cat Ozzie, who has thus far shown monumental disinterest in the proceedings.
Accordingly, when an error is discovered, in general, I will correct it during the course of the contest. To the argument that this process is somehow “unfair,” I would point out that it affects all players equally - that is, the oppurtunity to see the correction is as random as the opportunity to see and handle the questions in the first place, given that the challenges are not posted on any set schedule.
You are right when you suggest that math and science do not weigh as heavily in these as pop culture, literature, and art. I appreciate the feedback.
In summary, when an error appears in a question, making the question unanswerable or vague, and the error is subsequently corrected, I hold that it does not unduly prejudice any participant, nor is it inherently unfair, nor does it invalidate the question. This assignment of error is denied.
2. A question that elicits a Yes/No or True/False answer should be completely correct with just a Yes/No or True/False answer, unless it says “Explain.” No half-points.
I refer you to the original rules, which gave as an example of a correct question and answer pair, “Q: Is the quality of mercy strained? A: No, it fallth as gentle rains from the heavens. (From Portia’s speech in Merchant of Venice).”
From this we see that answering a yes/no question with only a yes/no answer is not acceptable, even in the absence of a directive to explain. Moreover, it flies in the face of the spirit of this contest to assume that any question may be answered by guessing with a 50/50 chance of being right.
“Explain” or “discuss”, when they appear, are guides to the alert reader that a more complete explanation may be required. However, it may be that not all of the specifics the reader uncovers in an effort to be complete were necessary to gain full credit. It is unnecessary, for example, to identify the act, scene, and line numbers for Portia’s speech in the example above.
While I will try not to be capricious about such things, the fact remains that it is not necessary to direct the reader to “Explain,” “Discuss,” or anything similar in order to require more than a simple Yes/No answer. This assignment of error is denied.
3. Omni’s specific answers should be awarded more points than either Shayna’s or Arnold’s answers.
Omni’s analysis of how points should be awarded is not entirely correct. (See point 2 above, see also my post in this thread of 02-12-2000 09:18 PM.)
As the Lola question is framed, for example, it’s unclear whether I’m referring to the show or just the song, which charted on its own. If the song, then the ‘answer’ is yes; if the show, then obviously, since Joe goes back to being old, Lola’s designs are thwarted, and the answer is no. For this reason, credit is given solely for knowing it’s a song and who sung it, OR for knowing that in the context of the show Damn Yankees, Lola doesn’t get her way. But the person who ventured a Kinks reference was wrong, because although they have a song named Lola, it doesn’t contain that exact quote. (Note: if it did, unbeknownst to me, then I would give it full credit).
I agree that “be complete” would seem to include three cases when it comes to fumbles: fumble out of bounds in the field of play, in the opponent’s end zone, and in the possessing team’s endzone. In this case, I awarded points for knowing any two of the three. This is not per se wrong, but simply a generous allowance for scoring. I agree it would be better to have scored all three parts as necessary for a full point, but I simply didn’t. Next time, I probably will. Again see my 02-12-2000 09:18 PM post for discussion on the use of my discretion and method in scoring.
Since the Lola question was properly answered in the first instance by Arnold, the math question’s amendments properly included, and the fumbles question graded within reasonable limits as determined ahead of time by me, this assignment of error must also fail.
I am going to uphold the decision on the field. Arnold is the winner of BC#5.
I do appreciate everyone taking pains to say that they appreciate the time and effort that go into these. I thank you for that acknowledgement. In the same spirit, I appreciate everyone who takes the time to answer, and the further time to protest when a situation’s not to their liking. It’s through feedback like this that I can improve the contest, and I hope that today’s ruling doesn’t discourage anyone from future participation or - if merited - future protests!
- Rick
I’m taking my ball and going home!!!
Woohoo! It’s worth having to wake up and check the databases at work to read this kind of posting.
Official winner of Bricker Challenge #5.