Tokyo Sex Whale wrote:It is always acceptable to use academic clues in academic questions.
True, but that doesn't entirely answer the question, because it relies on a presupposed idea of academic clues that you don't elucidate and that the poster is confused about.
Tale of Mac Datho's Pachycephalosaur wrote:So I've been reading through my team's drafted questions for ACF Fall and through some questions my club has written for fun, and I've noticed a couple of instances (in my questions and in others') where a clue points towards the correct answer in a manner that clearly rewards "real knowledge," but not in the category of the question.
For example, take a painting question on a mythological subject: is it necessary to separate a player's knowledge of the myth in question from a player's knowledge of the work of art. And if so, how does a writer accomplish this without resorting to difficulty cliffs and abstract clues that are much harder to follow?
It's inevitable that if you mention a figure holding a head people are going to go for something involving Judith/Holofernes or Perseus/Medusa, rather than, I don't know, Kali/Horus, because two of those happened and one isn't even possible. In Renaissance painting, there are also kind of standard scenes that are painted, it's my understanding. So it's even tougher--not even character combinations but entire events are easily "betrayed" in that manner. They're all valuable academic clues and legitimate ways to approach the art--some of my old myth books had the Cellini Perseus/Medusa in them.
Frauding is a problem in academic subjects--it's best not to drop a lot of Finnish-sounding names early, or whatever--but the fact that the world is more cross-disciplinary than quizbowl categorizes it to be isn't a problem. After all, our distribution is arbitrary. Much as NAQT groups lit and myth, what if ACF-2 were to group all the humanities together as a top-level category? Then it would be far less a crime, just because of renumbering.