Some experts advise that when one is struggling with problems of stress or anger, it is best to put words on paper to help one stay calm. Hmmm! This therapy probably doesn't work for everyone because after a whole paragraph I am still so pissed!
Over the years, we've gotten the short end of the stick in treasure hunts more than a handful of times, all of which had cost us the top spot. On one occassion in a well publicised annual hunt, a COC had inadvertantly left out the scores of an entire page from our answer sheet. On another occassion, the same COC had wrongly tallied the scores from our challenges. On yet another occassion, a different COC had misplaced our entire answer sheet (which resurfaced in his hands later). Yet I was not as aggrieved by all these bloopers combined (compared to what had happened to us in today's hunt) - I had waved these off as genuine human errors.
What happened to us in the Hospice Klang Treasure Hunt was truly unacceptable and a result of the two COCs failing to play by their own rules!
Most if not all hunters are well versed with the rule: "Both answers in English or Bahasa Malaysia are acceptable unless one of them is more fitting". To explain this rule to those new to treasure hunting, let's look at this example. Hypothetically, say you come across this route question:
Q: Dial zero?
And you see this signage along the sector:
Kelab Malam Ringo Club
And you are satisfied that dial = ring (as in call someone) and zero can be represented by o. The above rule basically means that you will not be denied your full points should you write your answer as:
Ans: Kelab Malam Ringo OR
Ans: Ringo Club
However if the question is rephrased to:
Q: Dial zero for a weapon?
The only fitting answer in this case would be:
Ans: Ringo Club
since club = a weapon.
In our case, today's Question 12 read as:
Q12: The value of an emergency number.
And this signage was spotted in the sector:
RM999 (seen on an advertisement belonging to Galeri Perabot Valencia Home Furnishing Sdn Bhd)
Ooops, I forgot to mention that if the signage that perfectly answers the route question is a sub-sign, most if not all COCs require that the main sign where this sub-sign is spotted be included in the final answer. This is to convince the COC that the signage was physically spotted and not crafted, which is fair dinkum.
Hence according to the first and second rules we had discussed earlier, the acceptable way to answer Q12 would be:
Ans: RM999 @ Galeri Perabot Valencia OR
Ans: RM999 @ Valencia Home Furnishing Sdn Bhd
But to our dismay, the two COCs insisted on:
Ans: RM999 @ Galeri Perabot Valencia Home Furnishing Sdn Bhd
... which I am utterly disappointed for the following reasons:
a. the two COCs had failed to play by their own rules.
b. the main sign in this particular case plays only a supporting role and does not even answer the question posed.
c. there was already a meticulously long list of tie-breakers already defined by the COCs - why not use them?
d. apparent inconsistency to this "broken rule". We received points for our answer for Q27 which we wrote as Lemon Dry Clean leaving out the BM word from the full signage of Dobi Lemon Dry Clean.
d. apparent inconsistency to this "broken rule". We received points for our answer for Q27 which we wrote as Lemon Dry Clean leaving out the BM word from the full signage of Dobi Lemon Dry Clean.
e. these two COCs are not rookie COCs and both of them are active hunters themselves.
And to add insult to injury, one of the two COCs in his own weak defence argued that the rest of the Masters had written it the "required way" so there is no reason "we can't write it the same way".
Now tell me, what good are rules when during the briefing it is explained one way and during the hunt it is interpreted in a different way? Why even bother attending the briefing? Why even bother joining the hunt?
These are questions that still linger in my head as I fail to find satisfactory answers in the COCs defence. Hopefully I will wake up in the morning and the answers I seek will become clearer. But I doubt it will and I foresee that this "injury" of mine will take a longer time to heal!
Updated 13 Jun 2011
Now on to a short tale about the Hospice Klang Treasure Hunt. The event was a noble effort by the hunt organizing committee and the seasoned duo of Chong Foo Seong and Garyguna Sager, who volunteered their efforts in aid of cancer-stricken patients who require palliative care. Despite my obvious discontentment with the end result, these folks still deserve a thunderous applause for their overall effort.
49 teams made their way to the Klang Executive Club in the morning of the hunt, the starting point for a five and a half hours roam around the city of Klang in search of 30 answers. There were also 5 treasures to decipher, 2 of them having been generously distributed during the hunt briefing two days prior. It was apparent that Foo Seong had master-minded most if not all of the 30 questions in today's hunt - the tell tale sign being his very distinct style.
During the briefing, he had promised a lighter fare which he did deliver in the end. There were really only 2 questions that had stalled the regular hunters.
Q3: Constructed crookedly with the answer and ended up with a means of smoothening.
Ans: Caring
Q17: They move with direction and sounds to identify a famous British entertainer in full.
Ans: Jets
And it was clear that a huge effort was required to solve these two questions because the possibilities were just too ocean wide (Q17) and the fodder/key somewhat ambiguous (Q3). So while my team mates were busy scanning the shops, I was busy snapping photographs. And when they were busy scanning the shops a second, a third and a fourth time, I was visibly disinterested. I had a game plan to 'take off and leave the sector' but could not convince my team mates to adhere to this plan. And I can fully appreciate their stand. There is just so much that the camera can cover. Also the importance of solving these two questions was clear - these are the type of questions that would likely break the impending logjam at the top of the leaderboard. Still, I find it not prudent to stick around and prefer to do the grinding work in the car. There is just so much that the human brain can handle, and to work on 3 unknowns in the clue while scanning the signages in a moving vehicle is just too much for my little brain.
We arrived at the end point with an hour to spare and Q17 yet to break (Q3 was already history - mid point control). A quick check with the COCs confirmed that none of the other regulars had handed in their answers. The thought of risking it all once again materialized in my head. We did it once before and narrowly missed out on success. But I was very confident that it would pay off this time and convince my team mates I did.
And we WOULD have pulled it off had the COCs not decide to nit-pick on our answers! Sigh!
Hospice Klang Treasure Hunt
Maximum Score: 115
1st: Venkateswaran Nagappan, Chin Kar Peng, Jayaram Menon, Kumaran Nagappa (109)
2nd: Sin Yoong Leong, Claire Chin, Goh Teck Koon, Julie Tan (109)
3rd: Chai Kok Khai, Chong Voon Kiat, Margaret Sha, Shandra Dass (106)
4th: Liew Kok Seng, Lim Kong Yew, Teoh Cheow Teong, Sam Rahman (106)
5th: Lim Soo Khian, Adrian Wong, Michael Pang, Toh Weng Ngai (103)
6th: Peh Kok Hun, Tommy Ng, Loh Chee Kwan, Lim Say Chye (98)
7th: Lee Ling Fei, Ruben Enbasegaram, Lenny Wan, Yeong Kig Siew (97) 8th: Christopher Foo, Tham Li Vyen, Toh Lee Khim, Lim Kee Wai (95)
9th: Teh Hann Song, Catherine Ng, Alan Fung, Lim Kien Khong (94)
10th: Alexander Hoh, Andre Teh, Muhammad Razif, Dharmataksiah Abai (88)
21 comments:
BTW I encourage our readers to point out in this posting past errors made by COCs that you have been victims of.
But please strike out their names. Our intention is not to embarrass these COCs but to showcase these errors for all COCs (new and old) to learn from and not repeat.
Thank you.
I echo your frustrations too, VK. Most of the answers on the signboards had both English & BM versions. I fail to see why the CoCs were overly picky and faulted hunters only on this one, which is not even the main part of the answer required.
This unfortunate experience will see me in future writing down and cluttering the answer columns with everything I see on the signboard. Damn, this is certainly not an improvement towards good treasure hunt practices, but will be a silly necessity, just so to play safe!
sadly to say, our team is one of the victim as well.
Newsflash: Woke up this morning to this written response from one of the two COCs:
When the ties were discovered, a decision was made to go through the answer scripts of the top teams to see if there were any errors / discrepancies that could help us break the ties. When it was found, a quick executive decision had to be made. While I can understand your feelings, I have stand by the decision that was made.
First impression: what was conducted sounds more like a witch hunt. As hard as I try to decipher the response, I fail to see why our answer to Q12 is considered an "error or discrepancy" since it is within the rules clearly defined in the briefing notes!
And since there was already a meticulously long list of tie-breakers already defined by the COCs - why not use them? Why the need to witch hunt?
My cryptic response to the last line in the paragraph:
No "buts". It was wrong to have brought into existence an unwilling being. (8)
Was also victimised...
Tom Jones once sang, "It's Not Unusual" but in this case, based on my relatively limited hunting experience, I believe that it IS unusual for the COCs to adopt such an interpretation or approach.
Here is my amateurish cryptic response which echoes 2R1I's sentiments(needs some lubricating perhaps, but hope you need not be Magnum PI to solve it!):
Dealing inappropriately without an answer is unyielding for us locally. (5)
Len1 my man. You got potential.
In the spirit of 1Malaysia, now can anyone do a Chinese and Tamil version too?
Thanks, 2R1I for inviting my comment on this post.
However, before proceeding any further, a caveat:
I was not in this hunt and therefore do not have the benefit of knowing what was said at the briefing; neither had I seen the briefing notes.
If the information you provide here is correct, then I must say that I agree with you totally.
BUT! (yes, there is always a BUT when it comes to me!) having been a CoC myself, there is that natural tendency to try to defend one's decision. And the tricky part is when faced with a situation where one knows deep down that one's decision is wrong, yet there is an element of face-saving in question.
As far as I'm concerned, insisting on writing both the English as well as the Malay versions of the answer (worse in this case, because we're talking about an over-lapping of both languages) does not amount to "playing safe", and it does not really help the case of proving one's success in the sighting of the answer.
I think I'm inclined to agree with Marsha that the "defect" in the answer wasn't even the cryptic solution of the clue. Rather, its sole purpose is to indicate where , i.e. on which signboard the solution was found.
A possible defence by the CoC is when the clue is fallowed by "What and where?". In such a case, he may argue that the question is asking for "what", meaning "What is the solution of the cryptic clue?"; and "where", meaning "Where is that solution found?". In this case, he may argue that the required answer has 2 elements, and both elements must be answered fully.
Even then, I'd still be against the idea of insisting on the overlapping of English/Malay version of the business name, especially if the CoC himself is inconsistent in obeying that rule. The fact that other top contenders wrote the answer as per the CoC's preference is not exactly a good defence if that approach is not the requirement of the rule.
Ultimately, I can agree that the CoC has the final say. But that final say must surely be based on the rules of the hunt?
So, upon ties, I'd use the tie-breakers already set in the rules. And upon exhausting those tie-breakers, then, and only then, would I look for minor imperfections on technical grounds to break the ground, but still subject to the rules of the hunt.
Face-saving or not, I am perfectly ok if the COCs would like us to write the entire sign - English & Malay of 25 or 50 or even 100 words (though I find it ludicrous to do so).
My wish is that the COCs just be consistent about it and clearly explain this requirement during the briefing / and in the briefing notes!
Just don't preach one thing and practice another!
"My wish is that the COCs just be consistent about it and clearly explain this requirement during the briefing / and in the briefing notes!"
Yes, that sounds like a reasonable expectation of the CoC. If the CoC makes his requirement clear during the briefing and/or in his briefing notes, that then becomes the rule of the hunt. Teams which break the rule shouldn't then complain if they disobeyed it, even if that rule is silly!
This comment post is going to break the momentum of the argument raised, but as a first timer, I am in dying need to ask the followings:
i) - Claim that COC does not act on what was preached.
I thought that the rule was to write in full. Therefore the required full answer is:
RM999 @ Galeri Perabot Valencia Home Furnishing Sdn Bhd.
So where or what is wrong here???
ii) - As a newbie, I really can't figure both 2R1I and Len1 riddles. So, maybe Magnum PI is needed.. Can any Tom Selleck looks alike enlightened me on the answers.
P.S - If it is too inappropriate to pen down the answer (for face saving of the COC), give some guidelines to crack them.
Thanks from a newbie.
Newbie,
i) Ooops, I thought I was clear enough. Anyway, rule #1 is really meant to convince the COC that one has spotted the sign where the answer was located and there is really no need to write the full sign (both english and BM versions) unless the clue requires the use of word(s) from the english or BM version. Sometimes a sign can have 10 words in English and another 10 words in BM. So it does not make sense to copy all 20 words down. Treasure Hunts are not about who copies the most words!
So in my earlier examples it suffices to write:
Kelab Malam Ringo OR
Ringo Club (for the first example)
But it is mandatory to write:
Ringo Club (for the second example)
ii) Decipher these how you would a standard cryptic crossword riddle which typically contains both fodder and definition. The number in the brackets gives the solver an idea on the number of letters in the answer. Eg:
Q: Prefer that disfigured pot (3).
Ans: Opt
Prefer = definition
Fodder = pot
Key = disfigured
The beauty about good cryptic puzzles is that the boundary between the definition and the fodder is not clear cut.
Write to me @ R37165@gmail.com if you need more clues. When I coach someone I would like to have at least a name although I do not need to see the face!
And write to me also if you need help on other aspects of treasure hunting. That is the sole purpose we had set up this blog!
Hi,
I also was not in the this hunt. Just to share my thought.
If in the signboard is a continous in one sentence "Galeri Perabot Valencia Home Furnishing Sdn Bhd." then hunters should write in full since write in full is also one of the rules.
But if there is two different sentences " Galeri Perabut Valencia" and "Valencia Home Furnishing Sdn. Bhd", so hunters can choose one from this two version since it also stated as one of the rules.
Bottom line, I agree on your wish.
I also have something in mind on how to "copy" a proper answer. Is it small or capital cap counted? I know one of the CoCs (long time ago) out there mark it as wrong answer if you fail to follow exactly as per signboard.
Hi mjay,
You'll be happy to learn that the COC who is case-sensitive has retired from the scene. But do watch out for the COC who is punctuation sensitive as he/she is still active.
Back to your comments. It shouldn't be necessary to pen the entire signage (eg. Kedai Bunga Seasons Florist & Gifts). After all treasure hunts is about whether one is able to successfully decipher the cryptic clue. The supporting words on the signage is merely to convince the COC that the sign was spotted and not crafted. So it should be sufficient to select either an english version or a BM version of the signage unless one of them is more fitting!
During briefing, COC should clearly mention what he/she is particular about (eg if he's case sensitive OR particular about dots after Sdn Bhd OR wants only English or Bahasa whichever appropriate).
Or else, this would leave hunters to a lot of unnecessary disputes!
Sorry to hear about your misfortunes, 2R1I!
As I'm also not in the hunt, I don't know how Valencia words appear in the signboard!
If what mjay said is true (that it appeared in one whole sentence), then it may be safer to write the whole thing just-in-case.
If it appeared as 2-parters, then it is OK to choose either one.
Having said that, I still think that it's a bit too strict to mark it wrong; since Valencia is not the actual answer.
501001000: It is a conventional sign with 3 lines on different imaginary rows -
Line 1: Galeri Perabot
Line 2: Valencia
Line 3: Home Furnishings Sdn Bhd
Just like how any other sign would be:
Line 1: Kedai Bunga
Line 2: Seasons
Line 3: Florist & Gifts
Sorry? Don't be! One good thing that came out of our misfortune is the discussion we are having now. Hope that all of us can learn something from this discussion, newbies & COCs alike.
Safer? I'd rather any non-standard rules be made clearer so that no one will be victimised in future hunts.
Earthquake in Indonesia today.
Feel dizzy? Run! (4)
Dear 2R1I,
In reference to your example above:
Q: Dial zero for a weapon?
The only fitting answer in this case would be:
Ans: Ringo Club
since club = a weapon.
If a Hunter were to put Kelab Malam Ringo Club, would this then be deemed the right answer or wrong? Since only the English version is required.
Why stress so much. Simple solutions, just stay away from future treasure hunts where this and other COCs whom you says liked to does this to cheat participants. Can enjoy your weekend with family and kids and no needs to pissed about what COCs did to you.
Anonymous #2: You asked an interesting question my friend. If I were the COC, I would not hesitate to give you your points since all the ingredients that I need is in the answer and technically this is one and the same signboard.
However, be forewarned that there could be a COC out there that might mark you wrong because he or she feels you may not have correctly arrived at the answer by giving both the english and the BM versions.
Anonymous #3: That thought was exactly what was on my mind immediately following the Q&A session. But that would be considered running away from the problem. I prefer to resolve the problem before I run away :)
While I do not have the powers to influence all COC to adhere to a standard SOP, this forum at least allows me to create awareness of the problem.
Anonymous (June 14, 2011 1:09 PM),
That's a brilliant question!
Just to share that whenever I clerk hunts, I always make it a point to remind teams that "English OR Malay versions are both acceptable unless if one is more fitting than the other." That, I think, is a standard line by most CoCs when conducting hunt briefings.
However, I have come across some teams which, when unable to decide between two appealing answers, wrote down two or even three answers in a given blank. So I also remind teams that "only ONE answer per question". If I see more than one, I would reject all of them, even if one of those given answers is the correct one.
In my opinion, to give both the English and Malay versions of the business name would render that first reminder above meaningless. Why even bother remind the teams that either English or Malay acceptable when he expects BOTH? The CoC might as well just say both English and Malay versions of the business name MUST be given; otherwise it will be marked as wrong!
Therefore, if I were the CoC, clueing the "Ringo" question, intending the "Club" as the required version, I would reject the Malay version, since I would interpret that as not solving the "Club".
This is, however, not to say that my approach is the correct or popular one. The format may be different in KL. After all, I have never clerked any hunt in KL.
well the clause "Keputusan di dalam pemilihan pemenang di buat oleh penganjur dan “COC”. Semua keputusan adalah muktamad dan sebarang protes atau bantahan tidak akan diterima atau dilayan" while registration...sucks..
Post a Comment