Date: Tue, 09 Jan 1996 15:55:02 EST From: selengut@MIT.EDU To: frc@nvg.unit.no Cc: selengut@MIT.EDU Subject: Summary of Round 49 so far Summary as of January 9th, 1996 at 14:30 EST Round 49 Theme: Conditionality Wizard: Jeremy Judge: Jeremy Present status (player, eligibility, style) Peter Wed, Jan. 10th 00:19:53 EST 1.5 Stein Fri, Jan. 12th 04:26:01 EST 2.0 Jesse Fri, Jan. 12th 18:07:15 EST 2.5 Vanyel Mon, Jan. 15th 02:40:39 EST 1.01 Others Wed, Jan. 10th 00:19:53 EST ***** Proposal 49:A Voting expires: Thu, Jan. 11th, 17:57:22 EST ------------- That rule 49:4 be declared INVALID ------------- For: Jesse ***** Temporary R.O. Override 49:B Voting expires: Fri, Jan 12th, 13:40:48 EST ---------------------------- The eligibilities of all players shall be extended by a period of three (3) days. Once this Proposal has been approved by vote, these extra three days shall be applied retroactively at the time of this proposal's POSTING. Additionally, the eligibility period bonus for each new VALID rule posted AFTER this proposal has been approved shall be ten (10) days instead of the traditional seven (7). ---------------------------- For: Jeremy ***** Rule: 49:1 Poster: Peter Time: 00:19:53 EST Judgement: VALID (formerly UNDECIDED, see note) Style: +1.5 >>>>>> Part 1 ------ All rules in this round must have two separate, clearly indicated parts. Each part must be functionally different. Only one of the two parts in a rule are considered to exist. Whichever part is violated first by a future rule is ignored for ALL rules. Both parts must be valid in and of themselves. Any rule which violates both parts is invalid. Part 2 ------ All rules in this round must have two separate, clearly indicated parts. Each part must be functionally different. Only one of the two parts in a rule are considered to exist. Whichever part first has its restrictions followed by a future rule is considered to exist; the other part is ignored for ALL rules. Both parts must be valid in and of themselves. Any rule which violates both parts is invalid. >>>>>> I would very much like to have given a discrete ruling on this, the first rule of the round. However, I am convinced that the VALIDity of this rule is (HA!) conditional on the content of future rules. The RO's require me to rule INVALID any rule which is "inconsistent with itself." In its present form this rule is not necessarily self-inconsistent, but there exists the possibility that it may yet become so. Until that possibility is removed I cannot bring a VALID ruling. Style: I love the concept, but am not thrilled by the whole "decidability dilemma" again (on the other hand, what did I expect with this theme, after all?!). Points were lost for not rooting out the loose thread on which the VALIDity is presently snagged. Another demerit for "only one ... are considered to exist" which seems to be in conflict with "must have two ... parts," requiring me to interpret "exist" as meaning "having restrictions which must be obeyed," something I do out of the goodness of my heart - Happy New Year! NOTE: Unless specifically referred to in a VALID rule I do not consider INVALID rules to be members of the set {rules}. As to the nature of their "existence," I leave that to the rules themselves... ***** Rule: 49:2 Poster: Jesse Time: Wed, Jan 3rd 1996, 16:24:04 EST Judgement: VALID Style: +0.5 >>>>>> Part 1: Any rule which contains the word "invalid" and is immediately followed by a rule with a clearly marked second part which is considered to exist, must have a first part which is considered to exist. Part 2: Any rule which contains the word "invalid" and is immediately followed by a rule with a clearly marked first part which is considered to exist, must have a second part which is considered to exist. >>>>>> This rule is valid, but not for the reasons that Jesse has presented me in his private explicatory text (see Note, below). When evaluating this effects of this rule for yourselves, players, please be reminded of the "Any rule" phrases which means that this rule must apply itself to 49:1 as well. Style: The style score is low here because the scope of the rule is so limited, after the next rule anyone can just avoid the word "invalid" to render it toothless. It would have gotten more after the first week for the convolutions one must indure to properly evaluate its validity. NOTE: Both Peter and Jesse have weighed in (in private) on a particular issue and I will now publicly take sides to let all know where I stand. Jesse posits that if a rule "does not overtly break [any restrictions of a particular part of a rule then] it follows [those] restrictions." Peter, on the other hand, suggests, "It's like in Monopoly: if you land on Go To Jail, you must immediately go to jail. If you don't land on that space, that rule just doesn't apply. You're neither following it nor breaking it." I must agree with Peter on this: conditional restrictions have two parts, the "IF {something}" part and the "THEN {something else} part. If the {something} happens then the {something else} must happen for the rule to be valid; if the {something} does not happen then the conditional restriction makes no restriction at all. We have not yet seen IF {} THEN {} ELSE {} type restrictions, these would either be "followed" or "broken" without exception. ANOTHER NOTE: Thanks to this rule, the status of 49:1 is now decidable and I declare it unambiguously VALID. For the moment I will refrain from sharing the logic of this decision so as not to prematurely dispel the delicious confusion of the present game state. ***** Rule: 49:3 Poster: Stein Time: Fri, Jan 5th 1996, 04:26:01 EST Judgement: VALID Style: +2 >>>>>> Part 1: If a rule 49:x is preceded by a rule 49:x-1, and followed by another rule 49:x+1, and one cannot immediately deduce which part of 49:x+1exists, then equally numbered parts of rules 49:x and 49:x-1 must share the same degree of existance Part 2: If a rule 49:x is preceded by a rule 49:x-1, and followed by another rule 49:x+1, and one cannot immediately deduce which part of 49:x+1exists, then differently numbered parts of rules 49:x and 49:x-1 must share the same degree of existance >>>>>> Stein sucessfully manages to tread the path of continued ambiguity with this rule. All I can say is, "My Brain Hurts!!!" I do wonder whether _immediate deduction_ is at all possible in this round :-) I am tickled by the phrase "degree of existance." Please, please, please, don't anyone introduce fractional existance!!! ***** Rule: 49:4 Poster: Jesse Time: Fri, Jan. 5th 1996, 18:07:15 EST Judgement: VALID Style: 2.0 >>>>>> Part 1: Any restriction which is not specifically violated is followed. Part 2: Any restriction which is only required to be satisfied under a particular set of conditions is only follwed when both the conditions and the restriction itself have been met. When the conditions are not met, the restriction is neither followed nor violated; it simply does not apply. >>>>>> First of all, this rule has made me rethink my stand on an aspect of 49:1. Initially I was under the impression that if parts 1 and 2 of 49:1 were "followed" simultaneously, or if part 2 were simultaneously followed and violated, then a paradox would ensue because we could not determine which event happened first. This view was short-sighted; so what if neither event can be said to have happened first, then we cannot determine which part of 49:1 exists FROM 49:1 ITSELF. We may, however be able to break the stalemate by the agency of some future rule (i.e. Rule x, part 1: "part 1 of 49:1 exists"...), so there really is no paradox. And therefore, my initial ruling of UNDECIDED was unfounded. Secondly, I made a misstatement in a recent message to the forum, I said: > ...the particulars of that rule [49:2] made it impossible for part 2 > of 49:1 to be violated before all its restrictions are followed: thus > part 2 of 49:1 was found to exist. This argument is based on a presumptive conclusion; even if I were correct that it is impossible (which I now doubt), I must still await an actual rule which forces one of the parts of 49:1 to exist before I can base my Judgements on that fact. Back to this rule: the only possible hangup I can find for this one is the "valid in and of itself clause." Part 2 is perfectly fine in this regard, it is the philosophy I have been applying up until now. Part 1 is the question, and I thinkl it passes muster as well; if it is in effect, then, since no parts of any rule have been specifically violated as of yet, all rule parts are (for the moment) considered followed and 49:1 part 2 can never be used to decide which part exists for these rules (since even if one is later found to have been explicitly followed, it still is not _first_). I give Jesse high style points for this posting because even though it has slowed me down, it has successfully hoist me on my own petard and forced me to follow (at least for the moment) his point of view with regard to conditional restrictions. A rule with chutzpah. ***** Rule 49:5 Poster: Vanyel Time: Mon, Jan. 8th 1996, 02:40:39 EST Judgement: VALID Style: 1.01 >>>>> Part 1 In the future, if a valid Rule is longer than ten lines (not including whitespace), the next two valid Rules must each be shorter than ten lines (*including* whitespace). Part 2 In the future, if a Player is given more than one Style Point for a Valid Rule, none of the words used in that Rule may be used in the next Valid Rule by that Player. >>>>> Although Vanyel thought he was submitting rule #3, he did not specifically request a retraction, so I am accepting it in the order it arrived. This is not inconsistent with itself or any previous rule, and since it conveniently applies only to future rules I do not have to think too hard about its status. As for style, is part 2 an attempt to "dumb-down" the round with respect to style?? Or does Vanyel think he will never write a stylish rule? Appropriately, I award just enough style to make Vanyel ponder my interpretation of the word "future." ;-{)> ***** Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 09:34:40 EST From: Jeremy D Selengut To: frc@nvg.unit.no Cc: selengut@MIT.EDU Subject: Voting summary The votes on proposals as of 09:30 EST, Jan. 10th, 1996: 49:A For: Jesse Against: Stein PRESENTLY FAILING Voting ends: Thu, Jan. 11th, 17:57 EST 49:B For: Jeremy, Jesse, Storm, Stein PRESENTLY PASSING Voting ends: Fri, Jan. 12th, 13:40 EST As 49:B looks like it will pass, I post here the updated eligibility list which would be effect if it does in fact pass: Peter Sat, Jan. 13th 00:19:53 EST 1.5 Stein Mon, Jan. 15th 04:26:01 EST 2.0 Jesse Mon, Jan. 15th 18:07:15 EST 2.5 Vanyel Thu, Jan. 18th 02:40:39 EST 1.01 Others Sat, Jan. 13th 00:19:53 EST Please note that I will still accept rules from new players to this round until the 13th (As well as from Peter) even though (technically) their eligibility has expired. -The Wizard Judge Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 09:45:55 EST From: Jeremy D Selengut To: frc@nvg.unit.no Cc: selengut@MIT.EDU Subject: Judgement 49:6 Rule: 49:6 Poster: Stein Time: Thu, Jan. 11th, 1996 02:40:23 EST Judgement: VALID Style: 0.5 >>>>>> Part 1: A rule part is said to be valid in and of itself if and only if it is internally consistent and it does not specifically violate any Regular Ordinances. Part 2: A rule part is said to be valid in and of itself if and only if it is internally consistent, does not specifically violate any Regular Ordinances and its contents follow all existing restrictions that apply to rule part contents. >>>>>> No problems that I can see. Style is low because this is so similar in form to 49:4. Not that I don't think this rule is a positive addition to the tound, just that it seems more like housekeeping. Part 2 is particularly well-phrased, however. -TWJ Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 14:20:33 EST From: Jeremy D Selengut To: frc@nvg.unit.no Subject: End of Round 49 Congratulations Vanyel, winner of round 49 and Judge for the Golden Round, #50! Jesse wins the Wizards's robe. See y'all next week, - Jeremy