From: Richard S. Holmes (rsholmes_at_MailBox.Syr.Edu)
Date: Fri May 31 2002 - 12:14:02 PDT
Round 185 began 2002-05-28 19:21:24 GMT
Judge: Rich Holmes
Wizard: Jonathan Van Matre
Theme: Slander and Libel!
============================================================
Eligibility:
James Willson expires 2002-06-06 17:18:29 GMT
Jonathan Van Matre expires 2002-06-06 15:18:16 GMT
Joshua expires 2002-06-06 15:17:26 GMT
All others expires 2002-06-04 19:21:24 GMT
Jesse Welton expires 2002-06-03 19:21:24 GMT
Aron Wall expires 2002-06-03 19:21:24 GMT
============================================================
Rule judgements:
----------- JUDGEMENTS -----------
Initial: Latest:
185.1 Jonathan Van Matre VALID, +2.7 INVALID, +1.7
185.2 Jesse Welton INVALID, +1.9 INVALID, +1.9
185:3 Joshua VALID, +1.5 VALID, +1.5
185:4 Jonathan Van Matre UNSUCCESSFUL, -1.0 VALID, -1.0
185:5 Aron Wall INVALID, +1.4 INVALID, +1.4
185:6 James Willson VALID, +1.0 VALID, +1.0
Proposal results:
185:A PASSED
185:B PASSED
185:C WITHDRAWN
185:D PASSED
============================================================
Rules
============================================================
From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <JVanMatre_at_oslp.com>
Subject: Rule 185:1
To: "Fantasy Rules Committee" <frc_at_trolltech.com>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 14:19:43 -0500
It has come to the attention of the FRC Oversight Committee that recent
rounds have contained an inordinate number of errors, ranging from the
merely grammatical to errors in judgement. For example, use of the
non-word "proceedure" and an ill-advised pun on the name of the current
pontiff and an obscure Texas Libertarian politician were both committed
in the previous round. Therefore, all FRC members are enjoined to take
corrective action whenever they discern an error committed by another
member of the FRC.
However, FRC members are advised to remain cautious of committing
slander, libel, or defamation. Please bear in mind the three criteria
for defamation:
1) The statement must be untrue,
2) The statement must be communicated to a third party, and
3) The statement must be demonstrably harmful to the reputation of the
victim.
For the purposes of this round, a player's total accumulated Style
points in the round will be considered a reflection of eir Reputation.
Players may submit Rules claiming damages for defamation. The Judge
will deem such rules VALID if they meet the criteria set out above, and
any rule found guilty of defamation will have its ruling changed to
INVALID as punishment. At the Judge's discretion, Style/Reputation
points may also be adjusted as a further penalty or compensation for
harm.
--
Rule Date: 2002-05-28 19:21:24 GMT
============================================================
From: Jesse Welton <jwelton_at_pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: 185:2
To: frc_at_trolltech.com (Fantasy Rules Committee)
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 10:17:55 -0400 (EDT)
--- begin 185:2 ---
Nothing in this rule is true. This is a stupid rule, and obviously
INVALID. Blatant self-inconsitancy merits low style; therefore this
entire untrue rule is defamatory to its author, me. Under rule 185:1,
the Judge must therefore rule it VALID. I further request a style
award in the amount of 3.0 points in compensation, to be deducted from
the style of the offending rule's author.
--- end ---
Hmm, yes. Now let's see what happens...
-Jesse
--
Rule Date: 2002-05-30 14:18:05 GMT
============================================================
From: Joshua <j3b4_at_yahoo.com>
Subject: Rule 185:3
To: Fantasy Rules Committee <frc_at_trolltech.com>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 11:17:01 -0400 (EDT)
In an open hearted attempt to neutralize some of the bad feeling that
may be creeping into this round I suggest that we learn from the
excellent examples provided to us by the communist administration in
China who invented the practice of "self-criticism". By offering
self-criticism we reveal our honest intentions and fair spirit before
tearing mercilessly into the flesh of our esteemed comrades.
To provide a shining example I will admit that even I have a fault. It
is hard for me to admit but I am a bit of a perfectionist. You may not
think that's a serious fault - I thank you for your generosity if you
don't - but I feel it can sometimes cause others to look bad when
compared to me. For this reason I am ashamed and deeply request your
forgiveness and adoration.
Now, having completed my self-criticism I am free to give a frank
assessment of my fellow committee members. From what I can see they
are incompetent and fractious. If their slovenly behavior continues we
may all be heading for irredeemable disaster. I can only hope that
something is done to make the INVALID rule writers feel a deep and last
shame for their actions.
Anyone who has written an INVALID rule in this round must make a
self-criticism and apologize to the committee in their next rule.
______________________________________________________________________
Find, Connect, Date! http://personals.yahoo.ca
--
Rule Date: 2002-05-30 15:17:26 GMT
============================================================
From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <JVanMatre_at_oslp.com>
Subject: 185:3 [Renumbered to 185:4 -- RSH]
To: "Fantasy Rules Committee" <frc_at_trolltech.com>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 10:16:53 -0500
It has again come to the attention of the FRC Oversight Committee that
recent rounds have contained an inordinate number of errors, ranging
from the merely grammatical to errors in judgement. For example, use of
the non-word "proceedure" and an ill-advised pun on the name of the
current pontiff and an obscure Texas Libertarian politician were both
committed in the previous round. Therefore, all FRC members are
enjoined to take corrective action whenever they discern an error
committed by another member of the FRC.
However, FRC members are advised to remain cautious of committing
slander, libel, or defamation. Please bear in mind the three criteria
for defamation:
1) The statement must be untrue,
2) The statement must be communicated to a third party, and
3) The statement must be demonstrably harmful to the reputation of the
victim.
For the purposes of this round, a player's total accumulated Style
points in the round will be considered a reflection of eir Reputation.
Players may submit Rules claiming damages for defamation. Any rule
found guilty of defamation (as a result of the rule claiming defamation
being ruled VALID) will have its ruling changed to INVALID as
punishment. At the Judge's discretion, Style/Reputation points may also
be adjusted as a further penalty or compensation for harm from
defamation.
<non-rule commentary>
Well, blimey if I didn't miss one little (but crucial) problem with this
the first time around. At least I wasn't the only one who missed it. I
gather it's generally considered gauche to resubmit the same rule here,
but I'm really interested to see how this plays out, so here's what I
hope is a working, valid version.
</non-rule commentary>
--
Rule Date: 2002-05-30 15:18:16 GMT
============================================================
From: Aron Wall <aron_at_wall.org>
Subject: 185:5
To: frc_at_trolltech.com
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 10:00:05 -0700
>>>>>
It grows increasingly clear that the FRC consists almost entirely of
extremely depraved individuals. They are only concerned with the
success of themselves and their own rules, and are perfectly caspable of
putting forward the most blatantly illogical and absurd arguments that
their own rules should be VALID with high style--but for other people's
rules, they do just the opposite. For the first 75 rounds since I
joined, I had high hopes that they would shape up, that they would be
able to rule themselves in a peaceful, democratic fashion. But now I
realize that human nature is completely corrupt, unable to provide
happiness for themselves or others. What? Do you think that these
bastions of wickedness are happy? Why then do they continue to fight
for honor in future rounds no matter how much they have recieved in
previous rounds? It is an inherantly futile effort. Everyone loses,
even the winners. If the masses are completely corrupt, only an
absolute ruling power can keep them in line. The Leviathan. The Judge.
However, it has come to my attention that the Judge does not yet have
absolute power. While there is a limit to what one rule can do, there
is a drastic remedy that this rule shall take that will bring the Judge
much greater power. I feel confident that the Judge, in light of my
carefully reasoned treatise on human nature, will accept this increased
power.
Future rules shall all be INVALID due to inconsistancy with this rule.
That is, they should all be declared INVALID the first time. The Judge
is perfectly able to make them VALID by a reruling, and presumably shall
for any rules that he likes. But no more of this nonsense about
consistency automatically earning a place among the ruleset. Forget
about consistancy. All that matters is whether the (nearly)
omnicompetent Judge does or does not like your rule.
>>>>>>
--
Rule Date: 2002-05-30 16:59:53 GMT
============================================================
From: James Willson <jkvw3_at_yahoo.com>
Subject: 185:6
To: frc <frc_at_trolltech.com>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 10:18:13 -0700 (PDT)
185:6
>>>>>>>>>>
Since the judge is an unsufferable twit,we will tell the judge what rules he
does and does not like.
The judge likes all rules which are consistent with previous valid rules
which are not 185:5, but which are not consistent with 185:5.
The judge does not like any other rule.
>>>>>>>>>>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
--
Rule Date: 2002-05-30 17:18:29 GMT
============================================================
Proposals
============================================================
From: Stephen Turner <sret1_at_ntlworld.com>
Subject: Re: Round 184 Final Score - Is the Fantasy Rules Committee Still Alive?
To: Fantasy Rules Committee <frc_at_trolltech.com>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 15:29:08 +0100 (BST)
On Thu, 23 May 2002, Joshua wrote:
>
> At this time the only eligible player is "Viagara for Women". "Viagara
> for Women" becomes the judge for round 185.
> Richard S. Holmes is the Wizard.
>
I propose the following Temporary Overrule under RO9:
185:A Notwithstanding Regular Ordinance 5(c), Richard Holmes shall be the
Judge for round 185.
I vote FOR this proposal.
--
Stephen Turner, Cambridge, UK http://homepage.ntlworld.com/adelie/stephen/
"This is Henman's 8th Wimbledon, and he's only lost 7 matches." BBC, 2/Jul/01
--
Rule Date: 2002-05-23 18:04:18 GMT
============================================================
From: rsholmes_at_mailbox.syr.edu (Richard S. Holmes)
Subject: Re: Round 184 Final Score - Is the Fantasy Rules Committee Still Alive?
To: Fantasy Rules Committee <frc_at_trolltech.com>
Date: 23 May 2002 15:06:53 -0400
Stephen Turner <sret1_at_ntlworld.com> writes:
> I propose the following Temporary Overrule under RO9:
>
> 185:A Notwithstanding Regular Ordinance 5(c), Richard Holmes shall be the
> Judge for round 185.
I vote FOR this proposal. However, I also propose a Temporary Overrule:
185:B Jonathan Van Matre shall be the Wizard for round 185.
(However, given that the Judge seemed eager for a loophole, I hope e
will change eir ruling on the outcome of Round 184 based on the
arguments already presented and render both these proposals moot.)
--
- Rich Holmes
Syracuse, NY
--
Rule Date: 2002-05-23 19:07:11 GMT
============================================================
From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <JVanMatre_at_oslp.com>
Subject: Proposal 185:C
To: "Fantasy Rules Committee" <frc_at_trolltech.com>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 14:08:48 -0500
PROPOSED: For the duration of Round 185, The Judge shall have the
authority to change eir ruling on any rule, and the style points awarded
to that rule, at any time.
ARGUMENT: It is expected that the Judge will not do so arbitrarily, but
within the constraints of Rule 185:1. This is to facilitate a changing
player "reputation" which is synonymous with the style score, and allow
players to invalidate each other's rules by noting errors in them,
thereby setting up a climate in which accusations of libel, slander, and
defamation may run rampant. See Rule 185:1 for a more detailed
explanation.
--
Rule Date: 2002-05-28 19:10:17 GMT
============================================================
From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <JVanMatre_at_oslp.com>
Subject: RE: Proposal 185:D
To: "Fantasy Rules Committee" <frc_at_trolltech.com>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 14:45:00 -0500
I hereby rescinde Proposal 185:C and in its stead, propose 185:D as
follows...
PROPOSED: For the duration of Round 185, The Judge shall
have the authority to change eir ruling on any rule, and the
style points awarded to that rule, at any time and for any reason.
ARGUMENT: It is expected (although not explicitly required, and
deliberately so) that the Judge will not do so arbitrarily, but within
the constraints of Rule 185:1. This is to facilitate a changing player
"reputation" which is synonymous with the style score, and allow players
to invalidate each other's rules by noting errors in them, thereby
setting up a climate in which accusations of libel, slander, and
defamation may run rampant. See Rule 185:1 for
a more detailed explanation.
--
Rule Date: 2002-05-28 19:46:33 GMT
--
- Rich Holmes
Syracuse, NY
--
Rule Date: 2002-05-31 19:14:17 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST