Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 04:00:42 -0600 (CST) From: Don Blaheta To: Fantasy Rules Committee Subject: Round 50 Summary This distribution includes Judgements for 18-21, even though they timed out. Also, I have revised my point award on 50:6. (See judgement of 50:6 for why.) Finally, the results of Proposals 50:A and 50:B are at the end of this message. (A failed, B passed.) 'Twas a good round! Residue and Curious sure came in firing the big guns--between them they posted over a third of the round's Rules. I hope to see many more rounds like this one.... END OF ROUND 50 SUMMARY Style Points Residue 7.25 <--Say hi to Round 51's Judge-Wizard! Jesse 3.50 Jeremy 3.25 Andre 3.00 Curious 2.50 Stein 1.50 Doug 0.00 Rule Summary Rule 50:1 (Jesse) VALID 0.5 Style Points >>>>> This is the only rule which fails to contain some word which is not contained in this rule. This is also the only rule which contains some word which is contained in this rule. >>>>> Judgement: Well, it's a nice first rule. That second sentence could've been phrased better, though. At least it's short. Rule 50:2 (Doug) VALID 0.5 Style Points >>>>> This is the last rule that contains less than two sentences. >>>>> Judgement: This one at least does what it's trying to. Also, it is very short. Unfortunately, it also guarantees that future rules will not be so short. Rule 50:3 (Stein) VALID 0.5 Style Points >>>> This sentence contains a word that is a synonym to the word prohibited by 50:1. That is the word that is required by 50:1. >>>> Judgement: Seems okay... as far as I can see, this resolves the situation with 50:1, which is pretty nice, although it doesn't do anything else. Thus .5 SPs. Rule 50:4 (Jeremy) VALID 0.75 Style Points >>>>>> Rules containing more than two sentences must be referred to by name. Rules that contain more than two sentences must name themselves. The name of this rule is The Naming Rule. >>>>>> Judgement: Well, it doesn't violate anything, and it introduces a new concept, although it doesn't do much with it. A somewhat interesting concept nonetheless, so I give it .75 SPs. Rule 50:5 (Andre) INVALID 1.5 Style Points >>>>> Any Rule starting with the letter 'A' is invalid. This is not a Rule. >>>>> Judgement: This is invalid by 50:1 and 50:3, as well as being internally consistent. But the idea of a rule imposing a restriction on rules that it doesn't follow, then explaining this by stating it just *isn't* a rule... it just tickles my fancy, I guess. Anyway, I give it 1.5 SPs. Rule 50:6 (Andre) VALID 1.5 Style Points >>>>> Apart from The Naming Rule every Rule that has a name must be contained in its own name. There are no more than 8 unnamed valid Rules. >>>>> Judgement: It would have been interesting to see how this applied to the round, seeing what variations people could have made on "the title and text of this rule are both..." 'Twouldn't have been as bad as Peter says. Nonetheless, it violates 50:1 (in conjunction with 50:3), and is thus INVALID. Re-judgement: Oops! Several people rightly pointed out that this should have been Valid... I'm sorry, I became confused over which word it was that would be required, and that word which would be prohibited. (PS: If you re-punctuate the previous sentence, you will get a major clue. ;) Thus, 50:6 is VALID; I do not revise my SP award, though, because although it would generate some interesting Rules, it practically guarantees that rules will get longer and longer as the round progresses. Unless someone finds a way around it. :) Re-evaluation: In retrospect, I see that this was one of the most stimulating rules of the round; it inspired various Players to follow its restrictions in at least five distinct ways! (9 and 15 enclose themselves two-dimensionally; 10, 13, 15, and 18 enclose themselves one-dimensionally (19 uses a minor variation of this); 12 encloses itself with a semantic twist; 17 encloses itself with a too-literal reading; and of course the isocleptic rules contain themselves.) So I re-evaluate my SP award to give Andre 1.5 SPs for this. Rule 50:7 (Doug) VALID -0.5 Style Points >>>>> Since its Round's Judge seems to prefer short rules, this rule decrees that, if a rule (other than this rule) does not name itself, then the name of the rule is the rule itself. This rule is the last to contain more than forty words. >>>>> Judgement: I wish this *were* invalid, but I can't find a good reason to invalidate it (I could invalidate it for no reason at all, but that sets a bad precedent). This rule will make life really difficult for me and everyone else; first of all, we have to count words; second of all, we'll not be able to refer to most rules. (Because the name of a rule *is* the rule or even longer in some cases, it will take up most of the 40 word quota of any rule that refers to it. But oh well. On another note, I wish you guys would start writing self-referential rules instead of trying to require other people to do so. The only rule that's really impressed me so far this round was 50:5, and that was invalid by design. Rule 50:8 (Residue) VALID 1 Style Points >>>>> Except for The Naming Rule, every rule has a unique, one-word nickname that isn't contained in the rule itself, but is contained in The Naming Rule. This is also my statement of intent to join the FRC. >>>>> Judgement: A fairly straightforward rule, it doesn't break any rules, and I do think it's really neat that the Rule itself is your statement of intent to join the FRC. (And yes, Residue, that is completely legal. :) Hm... I'm not sure if it does anything though, because we are required to refer to 3+ sentence rules by *name* not *nickname*. Perhaps the rules are bendable in that direction? Well, at this point I am pretty persuadable. Persuade me. :) Rule 50:9 (Jeremy) VALID 1.5 Style Points >>>>> Reference Rule R e e This is the f l rule that e u everyone now r R refers to e whenever a n e new rule do- c c es not apply e n to all rules e . I refer, R r of course, u e to the Refe- l f rence Rule. e e R eluR ecnerefeR >>>>>> Judgement: The content is somewhat unremarkable (although it may trip up someone later in the round :), but Jeremy was the first to exploit a loophole in 50:6. Good show. Rule 50:10 (Residue) VALID 1.75 Style Points The Isocl>>>>> The name of this rule is The Isocleptic Rule. "Isocleptic" is a word that means "identical in name and content." Every rule either is or isn't isocleptic. The word "reference" cannot appear in isocleptic rules. >>>>>eptic Rule Judgement: Residue finds the other major way to work around 50:6, which is incidentally much more convenient. I love the term "isocleptic", and the fact that we now have an easy way of referring to that type of rule. Rule 50:11 (Residue) INVALID 2 Style Points >>>>> The name of this rule is This, and wherever the word "this" is used in reference to any rule, the rule it refers to is This rule, exclusively; furthermore, every rule which names This also names itself with the same name (note that a single name can refer to multiple rules, and a rule may have multiple names, and so forth). >>>>> Judgement: I was pondering this one, and had just about come to the conclusion that it would be fully consistent to either validate or invalidate it, when I noticed the fact that the name doesn't contain the rule. At least in the case of 50:6, naming the rule "This" doesn't get around the restriction. An absolutely *wonderful* try though. (Just as a matter of note: this manages to "violate" just about every prior rule, and might have gotten away with it if it weren't for the abovementioned faux pas.) Rule 50:12 (Jesse) VALID 2.5 Style Points >>>>> Harr! This be The Pirate Rule. I sail the seas in me ship, The Pirate Rule. I steal from each valid rule, in order, the first seven words not already in me booty. All that pay not are slain invalid. >>>>> Judgement: Though it cuts it really close on 50:7 (it is exactly 40 words long), this rule manages to follow all the previous rules. Jesse found a greatly creative solution to 50:6--he sets his rule afloat within the ship "The Pirate Rule"... thus the name contains the rule! In addition, I think the restriction is particularly clever, even if it does require quite a bit of extra work on my part. (Oh, and is "harr" really a word? ;) Rule 50:13 (Curious) VALID .5 Style Points The Jealous>>>>>This rule is named The Jealous Rule. It insists that any future rule that refers explicitly to a rule other than itself must also refer to this rule (and the Reference Rule). Furthermore, cabbage, broccoli, spinach, leeks.>>>>> Rule Judgement: I found it particularly amusing how Curious got around the restrictions of The Pirate Rule, but aside from that it's kind of unremarkable--the restriction is only slightly modified from that of the Reference Rule itself. On the whole, though, a nice first rule from Curious. (Disproved my theory that every FRC player starts out with negative style... ;) 50:14 (Stein) INVALID 1 Style Point >>>>> Any quoted name counts as one word. This rule's name is "Any quoted name counts as one word. This rule's name is XX with its quoted name substituted for that double X. This rule don't apply to rules without quoted names, like the Reference Rule and the Jealous rule." with its quoted name substituted for that double X. Any new rule that refer to the Reference Rule and the Jealous rule must also refer to this rule. >>>>> Judgement: This would have been a really neat rule (self-constructing, even!) except that it violates 50:6 rather obviously by not having the name contain the rule. I'll give 1 SP for a really good try, though. 50:15 (Curious) INVALID 1 Style Point This Sentence >>>>> One rule of number >50:13 makes no statements about its contents that are false AND this sentence is itself false. The name of this rule is This Sentence Is False. This sentence resignedly refers to the Reference and Jealous rules. >>>>> Is False Judgement: Another rule that is exactly 40 words. Unfortunately, I think this one thrashes on the rocks of 50:4, because it tries to refer to the Reference Rule and The Jealous Rule collectively as "the Reference and Jealous rules", which are not their names. I don't think this'll fly. 1 SP for introducing one of the most ancient of self-references, the Epimedean paradox. (Epimedes was an ancient Greek >from Crete who supposedly said "All Cretans are liars". :) 50:16 (Jeremy) INVALID 1 Style Point >>>>>> *IS*TH RULE E*NA IS* ME* *TH OF* IN TH TH IS WI *R * U D L E E N * I ################# I A #THAT NUMBER OF # S T #UNIQUE FALSE SE# * N #NTENCES PARSED # C O #FROM MY BORDER # O C #EQUALS THE MAXI# N * #MUM NUMBER OF I# T S #SOCLEPTIC RULES# A I ################# I * N E E L D U * R* IW SI HT HT NI *FO HT* *EM *SI AN*E ELUR HT*SI* >>>>>> Judgement: Well written, Jeremy. However, I'm afraid I have to rule it invalid. Here's my reasoning: The border has yo be part of the text of the rule, or else there would be only one sentence (50:2). Thus we must assume that the outer text is true with the force of rule text. Well, there are 7 sentence types that can be parsed from the border: 1) The name of this rule is contained within this rule. 2) This rule is contained within this rule. 3) Within this rule is the name of this rule. 4) ...is the name of this rule. 5) The name of this rule is.... 6) ...is contained within this rule. 7) Contained within this rule is.... 1-3 are true; the border (part of the rule) contains the name of the rule, and the rule trivially contains itself. Of the remaining four types there are an infinite number of sentences, yielded by continuing around the circle. #6 and #7 are, again, trivially true, since anything those sentences can say is already "contained in the rule". Leaving #4 and #5. Together, they seem to specify an infinite number of names for the rule. This causes no problem, though, because there is no limit on multiple names for a rule. *However*, we have just shown that all the sentences parseable from the border are true! Which means that the inner sentence is limiting the max number of isocleptic rules to 0, although there are already five valid isocleptic rules. Sorry, Jeremy. (And what I most apologize for is that I only just noticed it to be invalid, which invalidates *you*.) Rule 50:17 (Residue) VALID 2 Style Points >>>>> As big a fan as I am of Reference Rule and The Jealous Rule, a sequence of more than five consecutive valid rules that are not isocleptic is absolutely intolerable. This rule is named contained in its own name. >>>>> Judgement: This is the fifth non-isocleptic valid rule in a row. Thus it is valid. I also think that the name is really great. :) Rule 50:18 (Doug) VALID-BY-TIMEOUT (INVALID) 0 Style Points The>>>>>Biden, Gore, Clinton, Thatcher, Mulroney, Gingrinch, and Nixon, this is "The Shortening Rule". This is the last rule with more than two sentences. This is the last rule that is hypocritical. >>>>>Shortening Rule Judgement: Had it not timed out, this rule would have been invalid by 50:17. As for style, well... the names at the beginning of the rule are a cheap, cheap way around the Pirate Rule, and what kind of a restriction is "don't be hypocritical"? Rule 50:19 (Curious) VALID-BY-TIMEOUT (INVALID) 1 Style Point Rules referring to "the bunch" are construed to refer explicitly to every rule that requires reference to itself ; this rule is named "" There are three words in this sentence that some future rule fails to use. Judgement: Had it not timed out, this rule too would have been invalid by 50:17. I kind of like how it tried to get around the Reference Rule and The Jealous Rule, and yet another cute way of following the name-contains-the-rule restriction (in retrospect one of the best parts of the round). But the final restriction wouldn't have done much... it is the usual custom 'round here to assume that if there is a "this will happen restriction", there might be a later rule in which it _will_ happen. So just saying "some future rule will..." does nothing. Also, if this rule weren't otherwise invalid, I don't know what I'd have done with the first sentece--it directly conflicts with The Naming Rule. Rule 50:20 (Jesse) VALID-BY-TIMEOUT (Valid) 0.5 Style Points >>>>> 50:1 had a bunny, hippity-hop, adults have babies, babies grow up. Each generation bunnies are passed, that each valid rule have one (excepting The Jealous Rule and 50:9, alas), rigidly their order maintained, on each future rule, their ages ingrained. >>>>> Judgement: This one was valid anyway. It's meaning is extremely unclear, however. It's nice that Jesse worked it into verse, but it seems to have seriously obscured the meaning. OTOH, he _did_ manage to meet all the requirements (no mean feat); including making an isocleptic rule, which was required to refer to the Reference Rule, but couldn't contain the word "reference"! Fortunate that the Reference Rule was only two sentences long. :) Rule 50:21 (Residue) VALID-BY-TIMEOUT (Valid) 0.5 Style Points >>>>> Since bunnies are passed upon generation, Their lives are of infinitesimal duration; 50:9 and The Jealous Rule both shed a tear, O poor bunnies, we weep that your ages are zero! All future rules apply to all rules. >>>>> Judgement: At least, I _think_ this would be valid. It appears to meet 50:20's requirements, although that's not entirely clear. However, *this* rule is very clear. Working the rule into verse, still keeping it clear, is kind of stylish, although the requirement itself isn't in verse, and also isn't related to the Theme. Oh well. In case you're interested, yes I _did_ check every Rule for the nickname and pirate rules... here are my various listings pertaining to this round: RULE NAMES: 1: (iso) 2: (iso) 3: (iso) 4: The Naming Rule 5: (iso) [INVALID] 6: (iso) 7: [unnamed] 8: (iso) 9: Reference Rule 10: The Isocleptic Rule 11: This [INVALID] 12: The Pirate Rule 13: The Jealous Rule 14: ?? [INVALID] 15: This Sentence Is False [INVALID] 16: ?? [INVALID] 17: contained in its own name 18: The Shortening Rule 19: 20: (iso) 21: (iso) TENTATIVE NICKNAME LIST (i.e. this is only one possible config) 1: that 2: rules 3: containing 4: [none] 6: two 7: sentences 8: must 9: be 10: referred 12: to 13: by 17: contain 18: themselves 19: the 20: of 21: this PIRATE'S BOOTY: (an interesting note: Jesse sent me a mail of the "current" booty, as of when his rule was written--it was wrong in several places. ;) 1: this is the only rule which fails 2: last that contains less than two sentences 3: sentence a word synonym to prohibited by 4: rules containings more must be referred name 6: apart from naming every has contained in 7: since its round's judge seems prefer short 8: except for unique one-word nickname isn't itself 9: everyone now refers whenever new does not 10: of isocleptic means identical and content 12: harr pirate I sail seas me ship 13: named jealous it insists any future explicitly 17: as big fan am reference and sequence 18: Biden Gore Clinton Thatcher Mulroney Gingrinch Nixon 19: referring bunch are construed refer requires itself 20: 50:1 had bunny hippity-hop adults have babies 21: passed upon generation their lives infinitesimal adults And finally, the results of the two Proposals this round: 50:A (Residue) >>>>> R.O. 8 is, for the entirety of this round, changed to read as follows: "Restrictions on Judge's Power. The decision (or lack thereof) of the Judge may be changed if a proposal is made to do so and that proposal receives a two-thirds affirmative vote of the members voting on that proposal within three (3) days after the posting of that proposal. "If the validity of a fantasy rule is not officially questioned (either by proposal or Judgement) within three (3) days after its posting, that rule shall be considered valid {{and consistent with all regular ordinances and previous and newly posted fantasy rules, and all regular ordinances and previous and newly posted fantasy rules considered consistent with it,}} until the end of the round." The {{double braces}} enclose the added text; they are used only to highlight the modification and are not part of the ordinance. The text outside the double braces remains unchanged. >>>>> FOR: Residue, Doug AGAINST: Peter, Jesse, Dug 50:B (Residue) >>>>> R.O. 8 is, upon the conclusion of Round 50, amended to read as follows: "Restrictions on Judge's Power. The decision of the Judge may be changed if a proposal is made to do so and that proposal receives a two-thirds affirmative vote of the members voting on that proposal within three (3) days after the posting of that proposal. "Default. If the Judge does not declare judgment of a fantasy rule within three (3) days after its posting, e shall be considered then to have decided and declared that rule valid." >>>>> FOR: Residue, Doug, Jesse, Stein (I seem to be missing some votes, but as long as I'm not missing more than 2 AGAINST votes, ) Proposal 50:A fails, and Proposal 50:B passes. Regular Ordinance 8 now reads as stated in 50:B. Judge Vanyel -=-=-=-Don Blaheta-=-=-=-blahedo@quincy.edu-=-=-=-dblaheta@aol.com-=-=-=- A cynic is a person searching for an honest man, with a stolen lantern. -- Edgar A. Shoaff