You, Seth Teitler, are here failing to draw the crucial distinction between the way questions are/ought be played and the way they ought be written. One ought always write questions that can be answered using real, academic knowledge (and must be answered that way early; are on relevant, important things; etc.) though it is inevitable that players will (with whatever frequency) answer using non-knowledge* of various kinds. It seems to me that the purring question (besides being on something inane and non-academic) is accessible only to guessing, because there were no knowledge-based clues+. That's unacceptable to me and, I suspect, is to most everyone; consequently, saying "Someone might reasonably have guessed the question's answer from its clues" is no defense of the question.setht wrote:...it sound like [CHRIS RAY! and potentially other people who dismiss with Matt Bruce's defense of the "purring" question due to the guessability of its answer from clues] disagree
with, say, Andrew Yaphe's description of how the game is played.
*I don't think that a precise definition of "knowledge" is necessary here; I trust my readers understand what I mean. If that's not the case, we can bring that up again.
+Perhaps there were some knowledge-based clues that I don't recognize but, at any rate, I see nobody arguing that they had a reasonable expectation of players knowing any of the clues (frankly, even to the end; cats do make other sounds, after all) which is really more relevant. I'm willing to examine this point as well, of course.