Page 1 of 1
MUT 2010: history
Posted: Sun Mar 07, 2010 7:29 pm
I wrote most of the history at the tournament. Let me know if there was anything factually incorrect, confusing, or that you just didn't like.
Posted: Sun Mar 07, 2010 9:54 pm
Dropping the St. Patrick's Battalion in the first line of the Mexican American War tossup seemed a little odd to me. Maybe I just know weird things about this war, but if that clue wasn't there (and I was playing this tossup) I would not have gotten it until you started describing the amphibious assault of Veracruz. Other than that, I was relatively happy with what I saw (which wasn't much).
Posted: Sun Mar 07, 2010 10:50 pm
The Mexican-American War question seemed fine. The clues after the St. Patricks Battallion were fine and possibly more well known. I wasn't a huge fan of the Milk tossup. It seemed like an awkward way to ask about Carolene Products and Harvey Milk. I'd like to see the tossup before I say more about it though. Overall from what I saw the history sounded good. The main improvement I would recommend is in the future replacing tossups on Grover Cleveland with tossups on individual terms of Grover Cleveland. That's where the future of the game lies.
Posted: Sun Mar 07, 2010 11:06 pm
Minnesota 5 Tossup 5 wrote:One act regulating this product prompted a test based on whether legislation was aimed at “discrete and insular minorities.” That act banning a type of this product prompted the case U.S. v. Carolene Products, which contained Justice Stone’s “footnote four,” an expansion of the “preferred freedoms” doctrine. A Congressional act banned the “filled” variety of it. A man with this surname styled himself the “Mayor of Castro Street.” That man with this surname was murdered, prompting the “Twinkie defense” of Dan White, who killed a man with this surname and George Moscone. For 10 points, give this surname of openly gay San Francisco city supervisor Harvey.
Posted: Sun Mar 07, 2010 11:54 pm
The milk tossup and the cash tossup were rather unsavory, but all the rest of the history seemed categorically pretty good. I had no general problems with the history.
Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 12:04 am
While I'm glad that Carolene Products came up (as its an important case that doesn't get asked about a lot), I don't think this was a good way to ask about it. Basically this was two mini-tossups, one about Carolene Products and one about Harvey Milk. Because the only way to get these to fit together was by having milk as the answer line it led to some poor choices in the first half. That half is almost all about Carolene so why is it mentioned so early on in the half. The "'Filled' variety of this" clue should probably come up before the Carolene part is mentioned. If you can't get milk off of Carolene products I'm doubt sure the other clues will help you before it gets to talking about Harvey Milk. However my larger issue with it is that it doesn't make much sense to ask about Carolene by using an answer choice of milk. The fact that the case is about milk isn't what makes the case important, Footnote Four is. It would be much as if you had a question where the answer line was chickens and the clues were all about Schecter or a tossup on trains where all the clues were on Plessy v. Ferguson. Because of the common link nature of this question milk has to be the answer line. Asking about Carolene in a bonus or as its own tossup (not that I would recommend that for something like MUT) would be far superior.
Additionally why couldn't Harvey Milk have been his own tossup. Obviously he's easy enough to be an answer if he was the second half of this tossup. Was there simply not enough clues for a tossup on Harvey Milk by himself?
Overall I think these things should have been asked about separately instead of being forced together because they can be connected in a tangential way. Common links should have more justification than just the fact that the parts can be linked because they share a word.
Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 2:19 am
I thought it was a good way to ask about Carolene Products without making a very hard part of a bonus. If it wasn't, I apologize.
Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:24 am
It seemed that European history focused almost exclusively on the post 19th century stuff in the 10 rounds I played in. I sadly didn't keep a notebook, but from my memory,in 10 rounds, the only tossups to not fit in the aforementioned area were Milan, Philip II, New Model Army, Hapsburg, Byzantine Empire (though this may be in world history), Edward I, and like one or two I'm forgetting. Most conspicuously, the total of 0 Ancient Greek and Roman tossups in 10 rounds seems a bit low.
I don't think that the 20th and 21st century are so important in European history as to take up over half of the distribution in European history. In general, I think this shows that the time variance didn't work that well, though this may be due to a selection bias in the choice of packets read at my site and my own memory.
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 1:44 am
I guess I partially disagree with Libo about the distribution of euro history questions. I disagree that the post ancient-19th euro was underrepresented, but completely agree that there was almost a total lack of ancient history questions. I really only remember the tossup on the Han and the bonus on battles at Dyrrhachium, and perhaps another about Megiddo (although this memory may be being conflated with packets I read before the tournament). Nevertheless, there really should be probably double this amount to include some Greek and a little more Roman stuff, while possibly another Mesopotamian question. Maybe the lack of ancient stuff simply slipped your mind or I am misremembering how much of it there was, but I thought I would throw my thoughts out.
I don't usually point out clues in questions that I feel are too easy or misplaced, but I kind of felt hosed by the intro to the Woodrow Wilson tossup. I buzzed off either the first clue that said something like "the difference between this man and his Republican opponent was a shave" with JFK. After negging and realizing it was Wilson about a third of the way through the question as it was being read, I realized that you probably meant the difference between Wilson and Charles Hughes who sported a beard. I still really don't see how this clue is substantially any different from a description of JFK and Nixon during the first televised Presidential debate when Nixon had the famous five-o'clock shadow. I thought about protesting and decided not to because I didn't want to be a douche, but we ended up losing by ten points that game. Perhaps, this might have been a good situation for the lead-in: "He's not Nixon, but he was separated by his opponent by a shave" or something along those lines. Maybe I'm wrong about bringing this up, but I just thought I would bring this to your attention.
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 11:08 am
I'm guessing that clue refers to a specific quote about how Wilson's politics were so similar to Hughes' politics that the only difference between them was a shave. Not being familiar with the quote, I can't say for sure.
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 12:28 pm
Cheynem wrote:I'm guessing that clue refers to a specific quote about how Wilson's politics were so similar to Hughes' politics that the only difference between them was a shave. Not being familiar with the quote, I can't say for sure.
I don't actually mean JFK and Nixon's physical differences during the debate, but that I believe it is certainly possible to characterize their political separation by a shave. Radio listeners interpreted Nixon as winning the debate, while television viewers saw his haggard and unshaven appearance and were influenced by it, thus believing JFK had won the debate.
Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2010 11:04 pm
But the clue was specific, per this: "Theodore Roosevelt claimed that the only difference between Wilson and his bearded opponent, Charles Evans Hughes, was a shave" (Encyclopedia Virginia). I don't remember exactly how the question was worded, though.
Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 5:56 pm
I liked most of the history in this set. Regarding general trends, I second the feeling that there was not much ancient history. I also had the impression that a lot of the world history was leaning towards modern history, specifically the twentieth century.
I don't know about other mirrors, but at the NGCSU mirror, it seems that the Andrew Jackson tossup induced multiple negs with Henry Clay when the Maysville Road was mentioned as a clue. This is not meant to be a criticism of the tossup; I just thought I should mention it. I think the tossup was worded in such a way that it clearly indicated Jackson and not Clay. Did anyone with significant knowledge about the Maysville Road neg with Henry Clay?
Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2010 4:04 pm
Ben Cole wrote:I liked most of the history in this set. Regarding general trends, I second the feeling that there was not much ancient history.
I wrote a tossup on one of the Roman emperors for my packet (I'm on my phone and forget which one), but I don't know what happened to it.
Posted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 5:54 pm
Growing up in Burlington, NC, and having gone to Alamance Battleground many times as a youth, I appreciated the Regulators bonus, and was happy that we got to answer the bonus. (And there was also the Virginia Dare/Lost Colony bonus, but that was directed to the other team.) I enjoy it when I hear questions that don't seem overplayed in the other easier tournaments we play.