“Is there some sort of a contest going on to see who can set the toughest hunt this year?”
That was the question raised by Michael Pang in his opening paragraph when announcing the Atmah Hunt Results. Apparently he was told that it was a “killer” hunt. As that question suggests, there have been other tough hunts this year.
I am not sure about an ongoing contest on setting the toughest hunt, but I think it is a refreshing trend, if indeed it is a trend.
I have participated in some treasure hunts in West Malaysia. Before that I have always believed that all the hunts there are tough ones. Well, I was wrong. I found that a number of the hunts were easy. Never mind about being easy, but some of them were of low quality in terms of dubious clues and debatable answers. In fact, I dare say that most of the hunts are easy, or moderate at best. Perhaps 10% to 15% of all the hunts could be considered as tough ones; certainly not more than 20%.
The general perception is that when the hunts are tough, new hunters will shy away, resulting in a smaller crowd. Of course this does not accord well with the sponsors. Consequently, the Clerk-of-Course (CoC) will become unpopular amongst the sponsors.
However, I have noticed several things about these so-called “easy” hunts—no matter how easy they are, the master hunters almost always still win the top positions. More importantly, because those questions are too “basic”, the new hunters will learn very little, if anything, from them. The master hunters will therefore rule in the long run.
But because the hunts have become too easy for the masters, all too frequently, we get to see perfect scores and the winners are decided by means of tie-breakers, in particular which team is the fastest to finish the hunt. In other words, the hunts have mostly turned into races. We have had some hunts where the allocated time were 8 to 9 hours, but the master teams would finish them in 4 to 5 hours. Ridiculous!
More and more treasure hunts have become a race rather than anything else, which is a departure from the original idea of the sport. A quick look at some recent hunts will show that there were too many ties at the top; for example, Sonny Skinny-T Treasure Hunt and Merdeka Treasure Hunt. But of course there are still some people who refuse to believe that it is possible to achieve perfect scores in treasure hunts.
In the recent LexisNexis Hunt, the CoC actually announced that he was instructed to set slightly easier questions this year. Well, even making those questions “slightly” easier had resulted in so many ties at the top. In hunts such as these, one silly mistake is all it takes to wipe out any chance for the top 3 positions. In fact, one mistake can cause a fall of several rungs and several thousand in prize money.
For this reason, I believe that many CoCs have realised the need to increase the difficulty level when setting questions. When the hunts are tough enough, even if there are ties at the top, teams are not likely to achieve the perfect scores. Which means it’s not likely to become a race—the winners will probably be decided by, say, question countdown. Check out the results of Atmah mentioned above, and the Kairali which are considered tough hunts.
Well, I welcome the tougher hunts because it makes a more exciting arena for competition amongst the masters, but also a good training ground for the new hunters to learn something new. However, I feel that not all CoCs have what it takes to set tougher hunts. I have seen some good ones who come up with brilliant questions. But there are others who come up with practically unsolvable questions such as 40-letter anagrams and the likes. That is their idea of a “tough” question.
Maybe I am just naive and too old-fashioned, but although I welcome tough questions, I have always believed in fairness to the hunters. It means that there must be sufficient opportunities for the hunters to solve the questions. Essentially, there must be sufficient hints in the questions to guide the hunters home; there must be reasonably enough time for the hunters to work things out and to spot the answers within the sector. When I beat the hunters, I want to be able to say that I have beaten them fair and square.
Now I am aware that some CoCs—some of whom are very strong hunters—would defend themselves by saying something like: Hunters must be able to handle anything that’s thrown to them. In a way, that is quite true, but what’s the point of giving impossible-to-solve questions, with hardly any time to figure them out?
This reminds me of a hunt that I joined. The CoC was a gentleman named Baskaran. One of the tasks that we had to do was to fill up a bottle with sea water. Participants had to run to the sea, dip a tiny sponge to absorb as much water as possible, and then return to the bottle, squeezing as much water as possible into it. Then repeat the process again and again within a certain time frame. Points were awarded based on how much water was collected in that bottle at the end of that specified time. But actually the mark for 10 points was impossible to achieve. I suppose that was the CoC’s idea to ensure that no team would achieve full score. I’m not sure even Usain Bolt could have filled up that bottle within the allocated time. In that sense, I consider this particular task as even worst than coconut bowling, because the latter has at least a remote chance to strike full score.
To the many professional CoCs out there, by all means, set the questions as tough as you like, as long as the questions are solvable. Give a fair chance to the hunters to solve your questions. Of course in the end they may still be unable to solve, but that is their problem. All we ask is to be given reasonable chances to solve. Now surely that is not too much to ask for?
That was the question raised by Michael Pang in his opening paragraph when announcing the Atmah Hunt Results. Apparently he was told that it was a “killer” hunt. As that question suggests, there have been other tough hunts this year.
I am not sure about an ongoing contest on setting the toughest hunt, but I think it is a refreshing trend, if indeed it is a trend.
I have participated in some treasure hunts in West Malaysia. Before that I have always believed that all the hunts there are tough ones. Well, I was wrong. I found that a number of the hunts were easy. Never mind about being easy, but some of them were of low quality in terms of dubious clues and debatable answers. In fact, I dare say that most of the hunts are easy, or moderate at best. Perhaps 10% to 15% of all the hunts could be considered as tough ones; certainly not more than 20%.
The general perception is that when the hunts are tough, new hunters will shy away, resulting in a smaller crowd. Of course this does not accord well with the sponsors. Consequently, the Clerk-of-Course (CoC) will become unpopular amongst the sponsors.
However, I have noticed several things about these so-called “easy” hunts—no matter how easy they are, the master hunters almost always still win the top positions. More importantly, because those questions are too “basic”, the new hunters will learn very little, if anything, from them. The master hunters will therefore rule in the long run.
But because the hunts have become too easy for the masters, all too frequently, we get to see perfect scores and the winners are decided by means of tie-breakers, in particular which team is the fastest to finish the hunt. In other words, the hunts have mostly turned into races. We have had some hunts where the allocated time were 8 to 9 hours, but the master teams would finish them in 4 to 5 hours. Ridiculous!
More and more treasure hunts have become a race rather than anything else, which is a departure from the original idea of the sport. A quick look at some recent hunts will show that there were too many ties at the top; for example, Sonny Skinny-T Treasure Hunt and Merdeka Treasure Hunt. But of course there are still some people who refuse to believe that it is possible to achieve perfect scores in treasure hunts.
In the recent LexisNexis Hunt, the CoC actually announced that he was instructed to set slightly easier questions this year. Well, even making those questions “slightly” easier had resulted in so many ties at the top. In hunts such as these, one silly mistake is all it takes to wipe out any chance for the top 3 positions. In fact, one mistake can cause a fall of several rungs and several thousand in prize money.
For this reason, I believe that many CoCs have realised the need to increase the difficulty level when setting questions. When the hunts are tough enough, even if there are ties at the top, teams are not likely to achieve the perfect scores. Which means it’s not likely to become a race—the winners will probably be decided by, say, question countdown. Check out the results of Atmah mentioned above, and the Kairali which are considered tough hunts.
Well, I welcome the tougher hunts because it makes a more exciting arena for competition amongst the masters, but also a good training ground for the new hunters to learn something new. However, I feel that not all CoCs have what it takes to set tougher hunts. I have seen some good ones who come up with brilliant questions. But there are others who come up with practically unsolvable questions such as 40-letter anagrams and the likes. That is their idea of a “tough” question.
Maybe I am just naive and too old-fashioned, but although I welcome tough questions, I have always believed in fairness to the hunters. It means that there must be sufficient opportunities for the hunters to solve the questions. Essentially, there must be sufficient hints in the questions to guide the hunters home; there must be reasonably enough time for the hunters to work things out and to spot the answers within the sector. When I beat the hunters, I want to be able to say that I have beaten them fair and square.
Now I am aware that some CoCs—some of whom are very strong hunters—would defend themselves by saying something like: Hunters must be able to handle anything that’s thrown to them. In a way, that is quite true, but what’s the point of giving impossible-to-solve questions, with hardly any time to figure them out?
This reminds me of a hunt that I joined. The CoC was a gentleman named Baskaran. One of the tasks that we had to do was to fill up a bottle with sea water. Participants had to run to the sea, dip a tiny sponge to absorb as much water as possible, and then return to the bottle, squeezing as much water as possible into it. Then repeat the process again and again within a certain time frame. Points were awarded based on how much water was collected in that bottle at the end of that specified time. But actually the mark for 10 points was impossible to achieve. I suppose that was the CoC’s idea to ensure that no team would achieve full score. I’m not sure even Usain Bolt could have filled up that bottle within the allocated time. In that sense, I consider this particular task as even worst than coconut bowling, because the latter has at least a remote chance to strike full score.
To the many professional CoCs out there, by all means, set the questions as tough as you like, as long as the questions are solvable. Give a fair chance to the hunters to solve your questions. Of course in the end they may still be unable to solve, but that is their problem. All we ask is to be given reasonable chances to solve. Now surely that is not too much to ask for?
No comments:
Post a Comment