From: Jesse Welton (jwelton_at_pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu)
Date: Sat Jul 06 2002 - 06:32:00 PDT
Final Summary of Round 187: Round 187 began at Rule Date 2002-06-25 15:47:18 (all times GMT). Jesse Welton was the Wizard-Judge. The round ended at 2002-0703 20:21:38, when Richard S. Holmes passed out of eligibility, leaving Mark Nau to claim victory and become the new Wizard-Judge of Round 188. Congratulations, Mark! Winner: Eligible until: Style: Mark Nau 2002-07-03 22:43:33 +4 Ineligible players: Ineligible since: Richard S. Holmes 2002-07-03 20:21:38 +2 Jonathan David Amery 2002-07-03 12:31:55 +1 Joshua 2002-07-03 07:06:05 +1 Alan Riddell 2002-07-02 19:10:53 +0.5 <all others> 2002-07-02 15:47:18 Ed Murphy 2002-06-30 15:47:18 +2 Rule summary: 187:1 Jonathan David Amery 2002-06-25 15:47:18 VALID +2 187:2 Alan Riddell 2002-06-25 19:10:53 VALID +0.5 187:3 Ed Murphy 2002-06-26 03:37:18 INVALID +0.5 187:4 Joshua 2002-06-26 07:06:05 VALID +1 187:5 Jonathan David Amery 2002-06-26 12:31:55 VALID -1 187:6 Mark Nau 2002-06-26 18:05:28 VALID +2 187:7 Richard S. Holmes 2002-06-26 20:21:38 VALID +2 187:8 Mark Nau 2002-06-26 22:43:33 VALID +2 187:9 Ed Murphy 2002-06-29 17:01:49 INVALID +1.5 Full rules: 187:1 Jonathan David Amery 2002-06-25 15:47:18 VALID +2 > > My first is in summer, but never in muse. > My second in bonsai, but not in bassoon. > My third, and my fourth, are oft in demand. > My fifth is in puzzle, and also in fool. > My last is in beach, and later in games. > My whole is the form of rules in this round. Validity: No problems. Style: A fine start, incorporating the puzzle theme in form and content, as well as all other theme suggestions in working material. Not difficult to solve, but sets an interesting challenge to future rules. All in all a very nice start. +2 187:2 Alan Riddell 2002-06-25 19:10:53 VALID +0.5 > > Fortune shines coldly on to love and never dies. > > Red in "...burgh..." > > Can you tell me where I am? Validity: No problems. Style: It's in the form of a riddle, but I don't see how it restricts future rules at all. Note: Players who would like to be well rewarded for their clever riddles would be well advised to send the Judge a private note with the explanation, as he hasn't the time to solve riddles as reliably as he might wish. 187:3 Ed Murphy 2002-06-26 03:37:18 INVALID +0.5 > > +----------------------------+ +----------------------------+ > | | | | > | This rule contains two | | This rule contains two | > | statements, exactly one of | | statements, exactly one of | > | which is true, and the | | which is true, and the | > | next rule shall be in the | | next rule shall be in the | > | form of a word puzzle. | | form of a number puzzle. | > | | | | > +----------------------------+ +----------------------------+ Validity: This doesn't have the form of a riddle, as required by 187:1. Style: Although it's not a riddle, I find the form of this rule appealing. That it's invalid, and would only affect the subsequent rule anyway, is disappointing. +0.5 187:4 Joshua 2002-06-26 07:06:05 VALID +1 > > What does this word puzzle mean? > > "Lal feutru eslur stum sope a netsquoi dan stum swaner het netsquoni > dopes yb sit reenast enceptdre." Validity: While this doesn't have the form that I usually associate with riddles, it is a riddle in the broad sense of a question or statement which is a puzzle. That's fine. Style: I like the puzzle form. I like that it affects all future rules, but it invites future rules which do not. I'm conflicted about linking each rule to the directly preceding one. In general, I don't think it's a good idea, but for riddles it might prove stimulating. +1 187:5 Jonathan David Amery 2002-06-26 12:31:55 VALID -1 > > What is the pattern of the capital letters in the last line of this rule? > > 187:4 tells us that: > > "All future rules must pose a question and must answer the questions > posed by its nearest precedent." > > HOWeVer It failS to state That only valid Rule scan be nearest precEdents. Apology: I'm terribly sorry to everyone for getting to this so late. It's especially bad given the linkage between each rule and its direct predecessor. Bad Judge Jesse. No biscuit. (-2 style for the Judge.) Validity: The riddle is, sadly, malformed. It doesn't have the intended answer. Is a riddle a riddle, if it doesn't have an elegant answer? It seems that in the absence of an elegant answer, this riddle might reduce to little more than "The pattern is that letters 1, 2, 3, 5 ... are capitalized." But that's just counting, not a puzzle at all. On the other hand, who's to say that there isn't a somewhat elegant answer that would make it a viable riddle, just not the one intended? With that in mind, I must conclude that it is, in fact, a riddle. There are no other problems. VALID. Style: The puzzle isn't, to me, very riddle-like. The miscount makes this even worse. On the other hand, the restriction tightens the meaning of 187:4. On balance, I'll give it -1. 187:6 Mark Nau 2002-06-26 18:05:28 VALID +2 > > "And here, everyone, we see an instance of a Blowbinnacci Series. > Note that it is much like the more reknown Fibonacci Series, except > for the replacement of the number 6 in place of the 5. This series has > no meaning whatsoever, so we will quickly pass on to our next display. > > We've had top scientists working around the clock to decode this, to > no avail. All that remains is for some hollywood pretty-boy to waltz > in and solve the code, and we'll be able to open the StarGate and > visit other lands. > > Anyhow, here it is: > > My first two are a man. > My first three are a woman. > My first four are a brave man. > My whole is a brave woman. > > Yes, the young boy in the back? Why is your hand raised?" Originally judged INVALID, +1.5, with the following explanation: ] Validity: Sadly, Jonathan was not the only person to miscount letters. ] Mark Nau also blows the 'binacci. I'm afraid I must declare this ] INVALID. ] ] Style: It's a good solution to the malformed riddle, but miscounting ] costs Mark any bonus he might have received for that. Still, I give ] this +1.5 for a good riddle, and a devious trick. Mark Nau pointed out that counting the number of letters in each group starting with a capital letter does give his count, at which the ruling was reversed with the following commentary: ] Hmm, yes, quite so. I hadn't thought to count this way, though I ] should have. As Karl Low pointed out, their absolute positions come ] out to a different series altogether, which is what I was looking at. ] Since this is every bit as sensible a specification of the pattern, I ] see no problem with this answer, after all. I overturn my initial ] rulings on 187:6, 187:7, and 187:8, as they are all VALID. I also ] return to 187:6 the half style point lost for miscounting, for a total ] of +2. 187:7 Richard S. Holmes 2002-06-26 20:21:38 VALID +2 > > I never would have figured Mark for a heroine addict. Still, I > declare; with age, I add and divide; with tea, I turn aside. What am > I? > > I have reason to believe this rule hides the answer to its own > question, as future rules should. Original judgement (later commuted to VALID, as mentioned above): ] Validity: This fails to answer the question of the preceding VALID ] rule, 187:5. INVALID. (Now we see the weakness of direct dependence ] of each rule on the preceding VALID rule. One INVALID rule can lead ] to an unfortunate cascade of such. This is exacerbated by a slowpoke ] Judge. Another -1 style for Judge Jesse.) ] ] Style: The riddle is good, and I very much like the restriction ] because it would test the ingenuity of players to hide their answers ] in plain sight. +2 187:8 Mark Nau 2002-06-26 22:43:33 VALID +2 > > A version of the correct reply would have you look at its first four > letters. What does that mean? Ignore that. That's not my riddle. But > future answers should also disguise themselves. > > I seem to have lost my train of thought. Sorry. A riddle, a > riddle...OK. > > It is tension without a head, and what I get when I am put into a > confused rant. Original judgement (later commuted to VALID, as mentioned above): ] Validity: Same problem as the last rule. ] ] Style: A decent riddle. A good restriction. A devious trick. I like ] it. 187:9 Ed Murphy 2002-06-29 17:01:49 INVALID +1.5 > > "Liar, liar... > "...pants on fire!" > "Does he wear pants?" > "Well, TRAINing pants." > > At this point, I'll HAND it off to someone who can decode this: > > 3 4 4 3 > 6 8 4 5 11 11 11 5 4 8 6 > 5 9 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 9 5 > 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > 3 3 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > 4 3 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > 2 9 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > 3 7 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > 3 5 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > 4 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Validity: 187:4 requires each rule to answer the *questions* posed by its predecessor, and the question posed by 187:8 was (in reference to the opening sentence) "What does that mean?" This question has nto been answered. I do not believe that answering the riddle, which was not in the form of a question, is sufficient to satisfy 187:4. INVALID. Style: I find the puzzle very appealing, and the way in which the answer is hidden is very nice. (It's easy to pick out where it is, but not immediately obvious what it means.) With a small reduction for not having a significant restriction, I'll give it +1.5. -- Rule Date: 2002-07-01 20:48:45 GMT -- Rule Date: 2002-07-06 13:32:22 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST