A refinement of the Kosman Scale

pliskag · Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 6:11 pm Post subject: A refinement of the Kosman Scale

Hello fellow Leaguers:

In thinking about my upcoming MiniLeagues, and in looking at some of the descriptions made by recent authors, it strikes me that an addendum to or refinement of the excellent Kosman scale might be worthwhile.

While the binary Type A/Type B distinction has been and will continue to be very helpful, we've already begun using A- and B+ to create shades of nuance, and I suspect it won't belong before someone tries A-- or B++. I nearly did so myself, in fact.

I also think that by focusing on one subject, MiniLeagues naturally become harder than a regular LL season, however gently the author tries to present them. I hope that this rating system allows for some consideration of this fact as well.

What I propose is not meant to replace the Kosman scale, but simply to provide another way to talk about the difficulty level of a MiniLeague. And so I present the MPAA (MiniLeague Predictive Analysis Assessment) system:

G (General Audiences): This is a Mini whose questions fall into the same broad category and difficulty base as a regular LL season. The recent 1999 ML is an example of this type; while there may have been some raised difficulty for players not alive (or not conscious) during 1999, the material covered the same territory as an ordinary LL, at roughly the same difficulty. (I am making one assumption here: that there are no MLs that will be easier than a regular LL season!)

PG (Pretty General): Akin to the Type B ML on the Kosman Scale, this is a MiniLeague whose content, while honed by a particular category, is designed to be accessible to the broad range of solvers. The harder questions will favor those with expertise in the ML category, but the easy-to-middle questions are targeted at the generalist. Games and Puzzles I think would get this rating.

PG-13 (Pretty General, but Unlucky for some): Intended for generalists, but with a harder edge than a PG mini. JI:Portraits might fall here, since even though the content was broad-based, the format - identifying faces - might have made it particularly hard for some players.

R (Restricted): Either by design, or because the category is outside the realm of most generalists, this type of ML will be challenging to those who don't have some knowledge of the subject. Opera and JI:Literature are examples of this type.

X (Experts Only): This is a full-on Kosman Type A, and non-aficionados are warned to tread carefully. If this isn't your subject, you're going to find even the easy questions challenging. I think India belonged in this category, and the Commissioner's upcoming JI:Sports MiniLeague appears to be rated X as well.

As always, what the author thinks and what his audience thinks might be quite different, but this at least allows some finer gradations up front.

Any thoughts?

PliskaG

SternT · 100 posts club Joined: 22 Nov 2008 Posts: 155

Don't forget:

NC-17: Anything wholly inappropriate for the younger Leaguers, such as 1950s Classic TV. Yes, pink category in the original Trivial Pursuit, I'm looking at you.

SternK · Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 8:41 pm Post subject:

moonshine · Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 8:42 pm Post subject:

I agree that there is a necessity for further refining of the levels of difficulty, and I like your proposed scale. It's easily understood, the criteria are well defined, and it's witty without distracting from the usefulness of the scale.

pliskag · Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 10:15 pm Post subject:

Commissioner Integrity · Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:30 am Post subject:

Well done. Mr. Pliska's efforts here notwithstanding, I hereby dub this the Modified Kosman Scale (or ModKos for short).

_________________
Thorsten A. Integrity
Commissioner, LearnedLeague

SternT · 100 posts club Joined: 22 Nov 2008 Posts: 155

JastrzebskiS · Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 11:46 am Post subject:

Would it be appropriate for authors to submit their ModKos rating when their idea for a ML is accepted by the Commish? Also, assuming we have this information, can a column be added to the ML sidebar on the home page to indicate each ML's rating (as determined by the authors)?

Also, any way to see the players signed up for a particular ML as they sign up? This would accomplish two things: (A) I'd get to remember which ones I signed up for and (2) everyone would get to see the competition before a ML starts (this might also have the ancillary effect of evening out the number of players, as some players who might think they'll do poorly based on what they predict will be the field size may decide otherwise based on what they see.)

Commissioner Integrity · Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 5:19 pm Post subject:

Commissioner Integrity · Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 5:32 pm Post subject:

pliskag · Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 7:21 pm Post subject:

BermanE · 25 Posts Club Joined: 12 May 2009 Posts: 26

ModKos? No, no. Surely it's Kosmalogy.

JastrzebskiS · Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 5:31 am Post subject:

I see your point about the unintended consequences. Some of that could be alleviated by closing registration earlier (say, a week before), but the point is well taken nonetheless.

I, too, am with Mr. Pliska -- I'm going to sign up because I like a topic and have time to give it a reasonable go, not because of the competition (or lack thereof). But it seemed to me that some people -- especially those who have never won an award or a mini before -- might want to know what their chances were, based somewhat on field size and strength.