Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 09:08:45 -0500 (CDT) From: Don Blaheta To: Oerjan Johansen , Residue , Ronald Kunne , Laurent Morendil Bossavit , Andre Engels , Stein Kulseth , Peter Sarrett , Jeremy Selengut , Don Vanyel Blaheta , Mary Storm Kuhner , Dug , Doug Chatham , David Bowen Cc: jgoodman3855@stu.oru.edu, joshuah@microsoft.com, G.J.McCaughan@pmms.cam.ac.uk, bjones@microsoft.com, rpw11@eng.cam.ac.uk, tpmsc46@ic.ac.uk, ferro@chem.cmu.edu, paoluzi@mat.uniroma1.it, crb11@cus.cam.ac.uk, pritcc@ut.rockymt.net, dgwagner@math.uwaterloo.ca, jwelton@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu, mage@vt.edu, jaw@cpu.us.dynix.com, mbr2@midway.uchicago.edu, andyl@harlequin.com, hap@iglou.com Subject: End of Round 53, important announcement First, the important announcement. All of you did, or should, have gotten Orjan's announcement that nvg.unit.no had some sort of massive crash, and mail doesn't work on that machine. Which means that Orjan himself moved his mail account to another computer, and the FRC list is unusable. Thus... the "official committee forum" mentioned in RO 10 has to be changed until further notice. For lack of anything better, I now declare it to be: mailing to the judge. The judge will then redistribute it to all the people listed in the To: and Cc: above (they don't all fit in one field!), with judgement. For now at least that seems the simplest way to do this. Some notes: it would probably be polite, especially after the first week, to cc your rule entry to the other contenders; also, if you want to send mail specifically to the judge and not to the forum, make sure you say so. I think this little nvg crisis came about as a direct result of the Proposal made to modify RO 10: Recently players have objected to the second sentence [of RO 10], saying that it gives too much power to the Judge. I tend to agree and therefore propose that Regular Ordinance 10 be amended to read 10. Where to Do Things. All actions under these rules must be accomplished by a public posting to the official committee forum, which is the mailing list frc@nvg.unit.no. If the official committee forum becomes unusable or unreliable, the Judge may designate an alternative committee forum to be used for no more than two weeks. Unfortunately, I must have deleted the votes on it, because all I've got is Doug's vote which was included in the same message. Can we just assume it failed? The platform on which its proponents were standing has just rotten through. Well then, with that taken care of... [snip] Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 11:05:50 -0500 (CDT) From: Don Blaheta To: Oerjan Johansen Subject: Revised End-of-Round 53 status Ummm... in the version of the end-of-round that I sent out, I forgot rule 8! So here is a fixed version for the archives: End of Round 53 Status: 1996 Apr 9 20:07 Residue 6 <-- The next Judge-Wizard! =============== 1996 Apr 6 7:59 Ronald 0.5 1996 Mar 28 :48 Sharkey 2.0 1996 Mar 26 21:30 Doug 0 1996 Mar 26 12:00 Others 1996 Mar 25 12:00 Andre 0.5 | 53:1--Doug | Style /\ | | VALID | Points \/ | >>>>> Each fantasy rule shall mention a "classic" work in a genre; for example, this rule mentions _Nightfall_ by Isaac Asimov as a classic piece of science fiction. No work or genre may be mentioned more than once. >>>>> Judgement: Well, it doesn't violate itself, that's for sure. Style: The genres we'll be using after several rules might get quite interesting, but that's balanced by the fact that the classic mention was done with a total lack of finesse. But then, it's tough to make a truly stylish first rule anyway, since you don't have any restrictions to cleverly work around. :) | 53:2--Residue | Style | /\ | | VALID | Points |.\/ | >>>>> Every rule has as its Sponsor the one person most responsible, in the opinion of the Judge, for making the work it mentions a classic--its creator, performer, producer, discoverer, etc. Every rule has exactly one Sponsor, and every rule names its Sponsor. The last letter of the last name of the Sponsor of any valid rule is the same as the first letter of the last name of the Sponsor of the next valid rule following it, if any. This rule pays tribute to Antonio Vivaldi's opus 8, the archetypal baroque concerti "The Four Seasons." >>>>> Judgement: It mentions a classic in the genre "Baroque concerti", which hasn't been used before. So it's valid. Style: I do like the idea of word-tag Sponsors, it brings the whole name-a-classic thing to a nontrivial exercise. I very nearly docked him a tenth of a point for using the plural "concerti" instead of the singular "concerto", when I remembered that each of the four seasons is considered a separate concerto (boy, would *I* have felt stupid...). Of course, that brings up the question of the requirement to name *a* classic work, but as a group of four concerti it is a single work. Anyway, I liked it. __ | 53:3--Ronald | Style __ /\ |_ | | VALID | Points \/.__) | >>>> "The Battle of Gettysburg" (1913) by T.H.Ince is a classic, in the sense that it defined the rules of its genre as we know it today. >From now on, a rule shall not explicitly name the genre of the classic it mentions, but the next rule after it shall do so. >>>> Judgement: It does indeed name a classic, whose author begins with I, in a genre that hasn't been named. Thus it is valid. Style: However, it turns this round into a trivia game. __ | 53:4--Sharkey | Style /\ |_ | | VALID | Points \/.__) | >>>>> Host: Contestant number four, do you know the answer? Four: Silent Movies? Host: Correct! You may now pick the next category. Four: I'll take "Classics" for 100. Host: Euclid's "Elements" is a classic in what genre? Every classic work is expressed using a particular media. The work mentioned in any rule must use a different media than the work mentioned in the previous valid rule. >>>>> Judgement: Doesn't violate anything. (That I know of, at least... I'm assuming Sharkey's guess on the genre is correct... if it isn't, I'll have to invalidate this.) Style: The restriction wasn't overly imaginative, but I did like the format of the initial bit. __ | 53:5--Residue | Style /\ |_ | | VALID | Points \/.__) | >>>>> The name of the classic mentioned in each valid rule must contain either: A) more words than the name of the classic mentioned in the last valid rule preceding it (if any), or B) one word. This rule gratuitously mentions Walt Disney's 1928 classic, "Steamboat Willie," and identifies the work named in the previous rule as being of the mathematical treatise genre. Y? Because we like you. >>>>> Judgement: Still pretty straightforward, it follows the requirements. And past rules do follow this one's requirements. Style: The restriction isn't overly imaginative, although it was a nice attempt to stick it to the next poster for a name starting with "Y". | 53:6--Ronald | Style | /\ | | VALID | Points |.\/ | >>>> Yahweh: Earth. The classic mentioned in future rules must be smaller in size than the classic that features in the preceeding valid Rule. , Answer of previous trivia question: Animated cartoons. >>>> Judgement: Once again, a fairly simple judgement of VALID. Style: I like how the "Y" thing was overcome; the very idea of "Earth" as a classic; and it was nice of Ronald to start very big, given his restriction. I should remind everyone at this point that the Point is _not_ to immediately choose "the microbe" as a classic, just to beat out everyone else. To borrow a phrase, that would be legal, winning, and No Fun. Let's not lose sight of that, ok? :) __ | 53:7--Andre | Style /\ |_ | | INVALID | Points \/.__) | >>>>> "Ladies and gentlemen, this earth is truely a classic of creation. However, as they say, God created the world, but it was the dutch that created the Netherlands. Great parts of this country were taken from the water. To the left you see one of the dykes, a classic of..." We couldn't hear the rest because of the sound. The sponsor of this rule is Hans Brinker who, according to legend, saved a dutch town by putting his finger in a hole in the dyke. Each following rule shall have its classic from a different country. >>>>> Judgement: I very nearly invalidated this on the basis that Hans Brinker didn't invent the dyke... then I went back and reread 53:2, to find that the sponsor is the person responsible for making it a classic... not for making it. *sheepish grin* Then I went back again and noticed that the letter chain applies specifically to _last names_. Sorry. Style: I do like the restriction, but I still don't find it to be really clever or interesting. But that's ok... the really good stuff usually doesn't come until the second week. *evil grin* _ | 53:8--Residue | Style ) /\ | | VALID | Points /_.\/ | >>>>> Red herring, red herring, red herring. The work named in Rule 53:6 is a classic planet. The work named in Rule 53:7 (just in case) is a classic method of flood prevention. The work named in Rule 53:8 is Alfred Hoffman's 1957 classic, "Neue Haas Grotesk." Note that this rule contains a clue as to its classic's type without violating Rule 53:3. All subsequent valid rules must do the same for the works they name. >>>>> Judgement: Follows the rules so far. Style: This is rather a stylish rule, I must say. Many 'points' to Residue for that, although how I'm gonna figure out the size of Neue Haas Grotesk, I'm not sure... ah well. __ | 53:9--Sharkey | Style | |_ | | UNSUCCESSFUL | Points |.__) | | 53:10--Ronald | Style __ | /\ | | VALID | Points |.\/ | >>>>> > The previous work is of course a cleverly disguised classic typeface. > > Although this may be scandalously difficult for the judge to size, > the work mentioned here is "Watergate", sponsored by Richard M. Nixon. > > The sponsor of any rule may not share any name with a > sponsor from any previous valid rule. >>>>> Judgement: Sharkey posted... about 15 hours after his eligibility expired. Sorry. Judgement: It is valid; according to Residue, "Neue Haas Grotesk" was the original name for the classic font "Helvetica". Which seems to ring a bell, so I guess he's right. Belated congratulations to Sharkey on digging up that "grotesque" bit of trivia. I'm not exactly sure how to measure Watergate, so I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt. The "oblique reference" should be sc--uh, surprisingly easy to see. :) Style: .5 for coming up with the font reference; 1 for the classic and its oblique reference. At least, that's what Sharkey gets, for coming up with the rule. Ronald gets -1 for copying it unnecessarily. | 53:11--Ronald | Style __ | /\ | | INVALID | Points |.\/ | >>>>> The previous rule is a classic case of Plagiarism! The Rule features Napoleon's Waterloo "Waterloo", sponsored by Marechal Michel Ney, one of the few on the French side who didn't make a fool of himself on this "field of tears". As the size of a classic is hard to determine in most case, I define: size of an item: either its Real Life surface or as many square kilometers as there are characters in its name. >From this Rule on all classics shall contain the letter W or M. >>>>> Judgement: This is a very confusing rule. Ronald has some explaining to do.... I, for one, can't find the "oblique reference" (or at least, I can't puzzle it out), nor have I any idea who M. Ney is, or how he is connected to Waterloo. Must be because I'm not French. As for the "size of an item"... blech. Now each item can have two possible sizes? Oy. So I'm withholding judgement, at least for a little while to give Ronald a chance to justify himself. Judgement: I'm going to make rule 53:11 INVALID for a few reasons: * I can't find the oblique reference * I have never heard of M. Ney * Waterloo may well be considered of the same genre as Watergate * Not to mention their media * Or size * If Residue wants to post a rule by his expiration of eligibility, he needs to know what the state of the rules are. If he doesn't post within the next day, it doesn't matter anyway. Style: -.5 for badly phrased paragraph 2 about Waterloo. +.5 for trying to resolve the ambiguity about size, but -1 for giving most things two sizes, with no way to determine which is real. And 0 for a relatively unimaginable restriction. _ __ | 53:12--Residue | Style ) |_ | | VALID | Points /_.__) | >>>>> Red herring, red herring, red herring. The work named in 53:10 is a classic scandal. The work named in 53:11 (just in case) is a classic military defeat. This rule names the 1736 (post-colonectomy) classic, $eveqa, and its Sponsor, nehtef. >From now on, each new rule's Sponsor must be a woman, and no Coahuiltecan proper nouns (except the word "Coahuiltecan" itself) may be used without prior authorization from The Judge. >>>>> Judgement: Seems valid enough to me. nehtef does indeed start with "N"... and Residue is kind enough to give not one but two oblique hints (in addition to the red herrings, of course :). Style: Verrry nice. 1 for the red herring, .5 for the genre used, .5 for the second of the oblique hints. _ | 53:13--Ronald | Style ) /\ | | INVALID | Points /_.\/ | >>>>> No Native American art in this Rule, but an art form that is performed by people as well as swans. Margot Fonteyn turned "Marguerite and Armand" into a classic, although her partner is now much better known than she. For tourists to the native country of this partner, this form of art is obligatory. Sponsors named in future rules must be still alive. >>>>> Judgement: Would have been a nice rule, but Ronald's guess about $eveqa was wrong. In fact, $eveqa is a perfect example of tiyi ejep val$ar. For the relative newcomers, Val$ar was a language developed FRC-style over the course of round 17. Now for the tricky part: $eveqa was a fish meal mentioned in rule 17:36. nehtef was the lady that invented it. :) Style: Too bad this was invalid, it was a nice rule. +.5 for the various hints in the rule (the genre is ballet; the partner is Nureyev; the native country, of course, is Russia), and +1.5 for the restriction--it isn't a silly one based on typographic characteristics, and what's more, it maked the round quite a bit more difficult... usually classics aren't classic until long after their author's death! Ah, well. Nice round, fellows! Take it away, Residue! Vanyel -=-=-=-Don Blaheta-=-=-=-blahedo@quincy.edu-=-=-=-dblaheta@aol.com-=-=-=- UFO's are for real: the Air Force doesn't exist.