That was the first question in the Be An Angel (Beautiful Gate) Hunt last Saturday. The Clerk-of-Course (CoC) explained the solution like this:
"Alien" refers to "ET".
"this particular question" means "Q1" (or may be written as QI, where the "I" is the Roman numeral for "1"). That "QI" is then reversed (reflected) to get "IQ".
Then "gained a" means the letter "A" is added.
This puzzle is also known as the "charade" type. When joined together, we can get ET + IQ + A = ETIQA. "ETIQA", which is the required answer, sounds like ETIKA which in turn means ETHIC (moral) in Malay ("local" being the translation indicator). And that, folks, was intended to be an easy question, according to the CoC!
Anyway, this thread is not about the above question. But I thought it's a good opening for this discussion.
Do we have ethics in treasure hunts? If yes, then how do we define it? What are the boundaries and limits, beyond which we are deemed to have encroached into unethical realms?
For a while now I've been meaning to raise those questions, but never had the opportunity somehow. I have been repeatedly told that "there are no fixed rules in this sport." But I don't really agree. We must have some basic "rules". Otherwise, I might as well conjure up a question adopting, say, a "cow" or a "horse" as an anagram indicator!
Would it be ethical for a participating team to call an assistant sitting in front of a computer for help? Could we still consider that team as "running on 4"? But isn't this sport about being resourceful too? What if that same assistant received a similar call from another participating team, asking for help on the same question? Would it be ethical to help that other team too?
I actually experienced the above scenario during the recent hunts I joined in KL. I thought it would be an interesting topic to explore. During the Beautiful Gate hunt, we got into that situation when we were dealing with Treasure 1. Then the next day, a similar thing happened in the AMC Hunt. We didn't know the name of a classic convertible (the Alfa Romeo Spider). We got down from the car and asked one of those mechanics. But I noticed that other teams were also asking the same guy. Unfortunately, that so-called mechanic didn't know the answer too! But what if he did? Were we wrong for being resourceful that way?
When I first started hunting, I was disadvantaged because I was too naive. I tried to "play fair" by not getting "outside help". So our team was unable to answer a question, because we didn't know that the "Fat Man" was referring to an atomic bomb.
Q) Fat man dropped here.
A) Nagasaki Japanese Restaurant.
Then later on, I realised that almost everyone got "outside help". It dawned onto me that "playing fair" meant getting "outside help"!
To repeat, if the non-participating fellow has helped a team, would it be unethical for him to help another team? Isn't it the same like the two teams collaborating with each other—except that they are doing it via a third party? It looks a lot like collaboration to me.
"Alien" refers to "ET".
"this particular question" means "Q1" (or may be written as QI, where the "I" is the Roman numeral for "1"). That "QI" is then reversed (reflected) to get "IQ".
Then "gained a" means the letter "A" is added.
This puzzle is also known as the "charade" type. When joined together, we can get ET + IQ + A = ETIQA. "ETIQA", which is the required answer, sounds like ETIKA which in turn means ETHIC (moral) in Malay ("local" being the translation indicator). And that, folks, was intended to be an easy question, according to the CoC!
Anyway, this thread is not about the above question. But I thought it's a good opening for this discussion.
Do we have ethics in treasure hunts? If yes, then how do we define it? What are the boundaries and limits, beyond which we are deemed to have encroached into unethical realms?
For a while now I've been meaning to raise those questions, but never had the opportunity somehow. I have been repeatedly told that "there are no fixed rules in this sport." But I don't really agree. We must have some basic "rules". Otherwise, I might as well conjure up a question adopting, say, a "cow" or a "horse" as an anagram indicator!
Would it be ethical for a participating team to call an assistant sitting in front of a computer for help? Could we still consider that team as "running on 4"? But isn't this sport about being resourceful too? What if that same assistant received a similar call from another participating team, asking for help on the same question? Would it be ethical to help that other team too?
I actually experienced the above scenario during the recent hunts I joined in KL. I thought it would be an interesting topic to explore. During the Beautiful Gate hunt, we got into that situation when we were dealing with Treasure 1. Then the next day, a similar thing happened in the AMC Hunt. We didn't know the name of a classic convertible (the Alfa Romeo Spider). We got down from the car and asked one of those mechanics. But I noticed that other teams were also asking the same guy. Unfortunately, that so-called mechanic didn't know the answer too! But what if he did? Were we wrong for being resourceful that way?
When I first started hunting, I was disadvantaged because I was too naive. I tried to "play fair" by not getting "outside help". So our team was unable to answer a question, because we didn't know that the "Fat Man" was referring to an atomic bomb.
Q) Fat man dropped here.
A) Nagasaki Japanese Restaurant.
Then later on, I realised that almost everyone got "outside help". It dawned onto me that "playing fair" meant getting "outside help"!
To repeat, if the non-participating fellow has helped a team, would it be unethical for him to help another team? Isn't it the same like the two teams collaborating with each other—except that they are doing it via a third party? It looks a lot like collaboration to me.
Let us consider a possible scenario from the CoC's point of view. Living in a perfect world, he bans all cellphones in treasure hunts. Absolutely no "outside help" is allowed—no assistants at the internet-connected computers waiting for instructions from those on the road; no collaboration between teams; teams strictly "running on 4". All teams will have only themselves to depend on. Well, except for all those daunting dictionaries in the back seat. That would be something, huh?
And then when some teams try to outsmart the CoC by hiding cellphones in the car, the CoC can strike back by requiring body searches—even stip searches, especially on young sexy women hunters. Yeah, that would be nice—I don't mind to be such a CoC!
Unfortunately, in the real world, enforcement is almost always not there. Rules are made to be violated; those who follow the rules will always end up being the losers. Whenever rules are without enforcement, the good guys almost always will lose in the end. The net result is either you join the rules violators and be the "crooks" yourselves; or you don't join the hunt at all.
The way I see it, it is just impossible to fully enforce the rules. Strict rules will also push the new hunters away, because they are usually the ones who need more "outside help". Closing the door to "outside help" means there is just no room for the newbies to come into the game. So I say let's open the door and level the playing field—if that is possible at all. Let's not dwell too much on the charade of ethical practice, because we all know that there is no such thing—at least I haven't witnessed it in treasure hunts.
And what of ethics amongst hunters? What of the pride of winning on one's own? Well, you can still be honest and have pride in your honesty. At the end of the hunt, you can proclaim with pride that you have hunted gentlemanly. The only thing is that you will not likely win any hunt—ever!
4 comments:
well...understand wat u r trying to say. but having said that, r v getting outsider's help referring to dictionary? poinnts to ponder.
No, CK, I don't consider referring to dictionaries as "getting outside help". To me, that's being resourceful. I am OK with googling information via cellphones and laptops too.
But once you get some other person (s), e.g. calling them up to help you search for some info on the net, or help you to crack a clue, then that is "outside help". In such a case, you are no longer "running on 4". To a certain extent, it defeats the tie-breaker under "number of persons in a team".
ok, so ur concern is another human being involved.
maybe tat's y no of team member as tie-breaker is now started to be dropped.
if tat's the case, asking other pp such as in ur case, the mechanic, does tat constitute as outside help as well. no offense, just try to make it clear.
enjoy ur weekend.
Yes, CK, that's the point I am trying to make. Asking the mechanic for information can also be treated as getting "outside help".
The point is, it's impossible to enforce the no-outside-help rule. No one will obey that rule anyway. Well, I suppose some naive people would obey it, but not for long! Therefore, to be fair to all, might as well make it "legal" to seek "outside help".
The only thing that I am totally against is collaboration between teams. I know it is also very difficult to control, but we must try out best to control it nonetheless. By looking at the answers submitted, it is quite possible to detect collaborating teams. But my suspicion is that very few, if any, regular hunters would go to such extent to win. More often than not, it's the new hunters that would resort to such cheap tactics in their desperation to win.
And yes, I notice that "number of persons in the car" has been dropped as a tie-breaker. That is something I will also adopt in my next open hunt.
A master hunter gave a great idea to me. He said there was a hunt where 3 extra questions were given. Those questions carried no points whatsoever. But in the event of a tie, those questions became a deciding factor. I found that idea very appealing, and I will consider doing the same in my next hunt.
Post a Comment