From S.R.E.Turner@statslab.cam.ac.ukTue May 30 12:39:26 1995 Date: Tue, 30 May 95 10:03:19 BST From: Stephen Turner To: frc@nvg.unit.no Subject: Round 36 ends; comments and summary Round 36 has ended, with Chris as the new Wizard Judge. I don't know if anyone has ever achieved either of these titles before solely on eir first ever fantasy rule, but this was an unusual round. I have now judged both the round with the most fantasy rules (round 24, with 40) as well as the round with the fewest. I was, of course, rather disappointed with this round. What went wrong? First, not everybody liked my choice of theme, worrying that it would turn into a technical maths round. I didn't quite intend that with the theme. I was trying to avoid the sort of story telling round which I dislike; granted, it would have made the round a maths round, but arithmetic is a sort of maths with which we are all familiar. I had hoped that it could be mathematical without being so technical that it alienated non-mathematicians. Maybe that was naive. Anyhow, it wasn't to be. The first two rules between them set up a theme which was, in my opinion, substantially worse than the theme I had proposed. And I think my opinion was shared by much of the rest of the committee, because nobody else could be bothered to play after that. I'm not trying to take anything away from Chris (or the Wizard as we must now call him) when I say this. He did well to see his opportunity and sneak a rule in, and I trust he will make a good judge. I hope that at least we can learn some lessons from this round. If a good FAQ comes out of it, it won't all have been bad. (Besides, I got an easier week than I had expected!) Here is the official summary: FRC round 36 ------------ Start of round: Mo-22-May-95 08:38 (all times GMT). End of round: Mo-29-May-95 23:33 Theme: Alternative Arithmetic Wizard: Jeremy Judge: Stephen Rules judged: 3 (all valid) Total style points awarded: -3.3 (-1.100 per rule) Summary of eligibilities and style points: Player (rules) Eligible until Style points -------------- ------------------ ------------ Chris (1) Th-01-Jun-95 15:31 +0.5 Gareth (1) Mo-29-May-95 23:33 -2.3 The Wizard (1) Mo-29-May-95 14:01 -1.5 Everyone else (0) Mo-29-May-95 08:38 0 ===== Rule 36:1 (The Wizard) Mo-22-May-95 14:01 VALID (-1.5 SP) >>>>> All future fantasy rules in round 36 will concern themselves in some fashion with one specific type of "alternative arithmetic", namely: "Moral Arithmetic and the Causal Calculus" which of course, is the mathematical field concerning itself with the quantitation and enumeration of the laws of human behavior and the consequences of moral and ethical choices. >>>>> Judgement: No problem. Style points: Low style points for (i) trying to sabotage the theme; (ii) using the word 'quantitation' which doesn't exist; (iii) not describing any moral arithmetic or causal calculus yourself. Only -1.5 because of bravado and for thinking up something which actually sounds quite interesting! However, I hope later posters will not forget that the word 'arithmetic' is in the theme. ===== Rule 36:2 (Gareth) Mo-22-May-95 23:33 VALID (-2.3 SP) >>>>> The Vr'hai tribe (who live on the island of Vr'aal in the Pacific Ocean) have a particularly interesting system of ethics, which might repay close study. The most remarkable feature of the Vr'hai system is its extreme formality: the Book of Laws (whose Vr'hai name is impossible to transcribe sensibly using only ASCII characters, and also almost impossible to pronounce unless one has a voicebox and mouth trained by years of speaking the Vr'hai language) lays down, in mind-numbing detail, exactly how any moral decision is to be made. The first stage in the process is known as the Enumeration (in Vr'hai, "Kaf-Lakkhar"), and works as follows: 1. You must enumerate with care all the different courses of action which you are considering. 2. For each pair of possible courses of action, you must enumerate each *critical difference* ("Lar'gachi") between them. There are many different critical differences, and they are all listed in Part II of the Book of Laws. 3. For each pair of courses of action, and each critical difference between them, you must enumerate all the *relevant consequences* (Vr'hai untranscribable) using the procedure described in Part III of the Book of Laws. The Vr'hai are a very intelligent race, and many of them really can hold all this information (including the enormous lists of critical differences and the methods for working out relevant consequences) in their heads at once. Far the hardest aspect of this is the procedure described in Part III, which requires a prodigious memory and considerable mental dexterity. It's late at night (my time), and I need to go home, so I haven't time to describe the Vr'hai tribe's fascinating theory of critical differences and relevant consequences. The next valid fantasy rule will give a detailed account of one of these (though, for reasons of space, it will surely not be able to list all of the critical differences or relevant consequences; curious readers are urged to consult the Book of Laws itself). However, I shall give just one sample critical difference, as described in the Book of Laws. I should explain that "First Course" and "Second Course" refer to the two courses of action being compared, and that "Main Course" refers to any one of the possible courses of action, considered by the person making the decision as the most likely or most preferred. If when the Courses are compared it be found that the First Course requires the speaking of more words than the Main Course, but the same hold not for the Second Course, this shall be deemed a Critical Difference of type 3.2a.5(i). If this relation hold with the First and Second Courses exchanged, this shall be deemed a Critical Difference of type 3.2a.5(ii). In either of these cases the Weighting shall be the difference in the number of words required to be spoken by the First Course (in the former case) or the Second (in the latter) and the number of words required to be spoken by the Main Course. (I am afraid the Vr'hai consider the Book of Laws to be the high point of their literature. Sadly, they are right.) The remaining stages, which I also have no time to describe, are called "Evaluation", "Differentiation" and "Integration". I shall content myself with mentioning that the latter two do not refer to the differential and integral calculus of Newton and Leibniz. >>>>> Judgement: I can't find any problem. Style points: Much too long. You know I dislike long rules, Gareth. It contains only one explicit restriction in its whole length, and that only on the next rule. It's also too much like rounds 17 and 25. I refrain from giving it -3 because it's partly the Wizard's fault and because it does contain the nugget of a good idea. ===== Rule 36:3 (Chris) Th-25-May-95 15:31 VALID (+0.5 SP) >>>rule start>>> It is of course well known that the despised Vr'hai villain Ki'Huk put forward the theory that the method of critical differences was a load of rubbish. Faced with this internal threat to their society Vr'hai elders had to chose between tolerance and expulsion of the villain since the critical difference was of type 36.3 which arbitrates between the destruction and survival of the Vr'hai culture. The relevant consequences are as follows. In the first case (tolerance): the possibility of personal reform of the villain; of social reform within the Vr'hai culture; and of revolution. In the second case (expulsion): the possibility of the martyring of the villain (including expulsion by execution); of his raising of a hostile army; and of a peaceful continuation of the Vr'hai culture. It was decided by the Vr'hai elders to expel Ki'Huk (by exile) from the tribe, believing that peaceful continuation of the Vr'hai culture would result. Unfortunately Ki'Huk in fact settled on a nearby island where he founded the Ki'lem tribe which is sworn to the destruction of the Vr'hai. In stark contrast to the Vr'hai, the Ki'lem dislike extended decision making processes. They believe in shorter theories, and their patience tends to decrease exponentially over time. Persons ignoring this ethic of Ki'lem culture have paid with their lives. In deference to Ki'lem culture the length of rules in this round shall not exceed 1000+20000*e^(-n) characters, that is 1000 plus 20000 times the natural exponential of minus n, where n is the rule number (as in 36:n). Fortunately the Ki'lem alphabet is much more straight forward than that of the Vr'hai and in fact corresponds exactly with the ascii character set. New rules shall also contain a mathematical formula relevant to an aspect of Ki'lem culture not discussed in previous rules. >>>>rule end>>>> Judgement: You don't quite seem to have understood Gareth's 36:2. In particular, you seem to have a slightly different understanding of what constitutes a "critical difference"; also, you don't seem to obey his constraint in the way he intended (an account of the theory of critical differences, or of relevant consequences); however, I think the language in 36:2 is sufficiently loose that I can't invalidate you for either of these. Style points: It's still a bit long, but I don't knock any style points off for that because I think it would have been difficult to go much shorter after 36:2. I do, however, have to take style points off for misunderstanding 36:2. Nevertheless, there are compensations. I like the fact that your restriction agrees with past rules too; I only wish you'd chosen your horizontal asymptote at about 500 characters! :) Also, I like the fact that you've put maths back into it (although not quite what I'd call arithmetic). Overall, I think the positive and the negative just about balance out. I give you +0.5 because it's your first rule, and because we're going to have no end of trouble interpreting RO7 if all players end the round with non-positive style points! -- Stephen R. E. Turner Stochastic Networks Group, Statistical Laboratory, University of Cambridge e-mail: sret1@cam.ac.uk WWW: http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/~sret1/home.html "10 or 11 degrees C in the south: that's double figures" (ITV Weathercaster) From S.R.E.Turner@statslab.cam.ac.ukWed May 31 13:14:07 1995 Date: Tue, 30 May 95 18:28:48 BST From: Stephen Turner To: frc@nvg.unit.no Subject: Round 36 ends; supplement Oerjan, Can you put this on the end of the round 36 summary, please? Also, the summary doesn't appear to be available by ftp at the moment; are the access permissions wrong or something? -- Stephen R. E. Turner Stochastic Networks Group, Statistical Laboratory, University of Cambridge e-mail: sret1@cam.ac.uk WWW: http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/~sret1/home.html "10 or 11 degrees C in the south: that's double figures" (ITV Weathercaster) ============================================================================== ====== Regular ordinance proposals: PROPOSAL PA1 - permanent RO3 amendment, Vote ended Fr-19-May-95 07:59 >>>> I propose that the RO3 be amended to read as follows: 3. Starting a Round and posting Rules. Whenever a round of play ends, a new round should begin as soon as possible thereafter. The (new) Judge shall determine the exact time of the start of the round, and e may also suggest a theme for the round and nominate a member to post the first fantasy rule. All members are eligible as if they had posted a valid fantasy rule at the start of the round. Only those persons eligible to play may post fantasy rules. The Judge is not eligible. >>>>> For 4: Stephen, Stein, Andre, Jeremy, (Late: Sagitta) Aga 0: PROPOSAL PASSED PROPOSAL PA2 - permanent RO7 amendment, Vote ended Fr-19-May-95 08:02 >>>> I propose that in RO7, "The Wizard" be replaced by "the Wizard". >>>> For 4: Stephen, Stein, Andre, Jeremy Aga 0: PROPOSAL PASSED PROPOSAL PA3 - permanent RO7 amendment, Vote ended Fr-19-May-95 14:47 >>> The reg ords be amended to read 7. Style Points. For each fantasy rule posted, the Judge shall award X points, where -3<=X<=3. The Judge may use any criteria e sees fit for such awards. At the end of a Round the Player who has collected the most Style Points will be known and addressed as the Wizard in the next Round. Failure to do so will NOT invalidate a fantasy rule. >>>> For 2: Dug, Andre, (Late: Sagitta) Aga 3: Stephen, Stein, Jeremy PROPOSAL FAILED PROPOSAL PA4 - permanent RO7 amendment, Vote ended Sa-20-May-95 19:45 >>>> I propose that the reg ords be amended such that RO7 reads: 7. Style Points. For each fantasy rule posted, the Judge shall award X points, where -3<=X<=3. The Judge may use any criteria e sees fit for such awards. >>>> For 3: Dug, Peter, Stein Aga 6: Oerjan, Bruce, Stephen, Ronald , Andre, Jeremy PROPOSAL FAILED PROPOSAL PA5 - permanent RO7 appendment, Vote ended Mo-22-May 08:37 >>>> That if proposal PA4 fails, the following be appended to RO7: Stein Kulseth shall be known and addressed at all times as the Grand High Conjuror. If at some time the Grand High Conjuror is also the Wizard, he shall be known and addressed as 'The Wizard, The Grand High Conjuror'. >>>> For 1: Stephen Aga 5: Stein, Chris, Ronald, Andre, Sagitta PROPOSAL FAILED PROPOSAL PA6 - permanent RO2 appendment, Vote ended Thu May 25nd 12:31 >>>> Replace Regular Ordinance 2 by: "2. Membership. Any person may become a member of this committee by posting in the committee forum a statement of intent to join. A new member may not vote on Proposals, before e has legally posted a Fantasy Rule. A member may resign from the committee at any time." >>>> For 5: Ronald, Stein, Sagitta, Andre, Vanyel Aga 4: Dave, Peter, Alyxx, Dug PROPOSAL FAILED