Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 15:33:26 +0200 From: Stein.Kulseth@kjeller.fou.telenor.no To: frc@nvg.unit.no Subject: Round 56 over I hereby declare round 56 officially ended. The winner and the judge for round 57 will be Jeremy ( ...or "Ieremy" as he so aptly named himself in a private correspondence, followed by "Oh, dogoseulo mio!" ) And we have no less than 3 wizards: Jeremy who gets to be wizard-judge, Ronald, Morendil, All with +2 Style points (as usual I'm cheap on SPs :-) FYI, the dogoseul was of course "j", and the seuddogo was either "o" or "u", but if Ronald's last rule had been valid, it would have been "o", which then also would have been the ipsodefydogo. Summary to follow. -- Stein stein.kulseth@fou.telenor.no G=Stein;S=Kulseth;O=FOU;P=telenor;A=telemax;C=no; http://www.nta.no/brukere/stein Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 15:55:40 +0200 From: Stein.Kulseth@kjeller.fou.telenor.no To: frc@nvg.unit.no Subject: Round 56 Summary Final Status: Jeremy May 16th 17:16 GMT +2 Ronald May 13th 13:52 GMT +2 Vanyel May 10th 07:14 GMT -1 Others May 10th 03:08 GMT 0 Morendil May 9th 21:46 GMT +2 Residue May 9th 07:20 GMT 0 Anton May 8th 03:08 GMT +1 Rules/Lures/Submissions: FR 56:1 * Vanyel * May 3rd 07:14 GMT * VALID * -1 SP >>>>> Welcome to the FRC School of Vocabulary Widening! In each rule, at least one word will be given and defined. The next valid rule must correctly form a sentence using at least one of the defined words. The words given may or may not exist in real life, and if they do it is not necessary that the given definition be the real life meaning of the word, although of course once defined in this round a word will then use its FRC definition for the rest of the round. To start us off, then, I define 'fromk' as "to design and/or implement a trap or pitfall". >>>>> Validity: No problemo Style: "Basic stuff", Vanyel admits. "Very", I'd add. Although the first rule shouldn't do too much, I like it when the first rule grabs the opportunity to shape the round in a not entirely predictable way. FR 56:2 * Ronald * May 3rd 14:58 GMT * VALID * 1 SP >>>> "Refursive": referring to previous rule in this round in a fromking way. >From this rule onwards, every definition shall be -somehow- refursive. >>>> Validity: Follows 56:1, but does it follow itself?. The definition uses "fromk" and thus refers to a previous rule, but does it do so in a fromking way. Well if it didn't it sure would have fromked itself, so I must assume that it does. Well done Ronald. Style: I don't know if Ronald intended me to reason as above, but I gladly deliver a style point for it. FR 56:3 * Morendil * May 3rd 16:34 GMT * INVALID * 1 SP ---[Begin Rule]--- How strange ! Opening my dictionary to look up the Theme of this Round, which I didn't quite understand, I found the following : definition, n. m. : every odd-numbered valid Rule in FRC Round 56. Ex. <> in Ronald Kunne, 'Collected Fantasy Writings' As everyone knows, a definition is worthless (and thus invalid) if it doesn't include at least one example of usage. ---[End Rule]--- Validity: Hmmm. Clearly a "definition" - a valid rule - cannot be invalid. But this doesn't invalidate it. The last line logically says: X implies false, which is equivalent to not X, where X is " [a definition] doesn't include at least one example of usage", ie. a definition *must* include at least one example of usage. However, there is other problems. Note that 56:1 is not clear whether redefined words take on their new meaning only in new rules, or whether the new rules must also interpret this word when used in previous rules according to the new definition. But by the example given it is clear that 56:3 uses the latter scheme, but then 56:1 gets impossible to parse, so it does seem inconsistent. Style: I quite liked it. The first redefinition. Redefining the round title itself. Setting up a three-fold ambiguity about what "odd-numbered" valid rules should be. A little minus for being invalid, and 1 SP it is. FR 56:4 * Anton * May 3rd 18:06 GMT * INVALID * 0 SP >>>>>> Portiflate: i) Redundant expression ii) Forming useless residue iii) Strive in vain iv) Excess Example: This is something of a portiflate. To avoid later disappointment due to an adverse judgement, it is necessary that, from this rule on, all future rules (to be valid) should be valid regardless of the validity of the proceeding definition (or more generally, rule). >>>>>> Validity: Doesn't use refursive in a sentence. Style: Generally OK. The restriction wouldn't do much except prohibiting some reverse causality schemes that are old news by now anyhow :) Also refursive as used, isn't used in a very fromking way, really. FR 56:5 * Morendil * May 3rd 21:46 GMT * VALID * 1 SP ---[Begin Rule]--- Refursively applying the spirit of my previous attempt, I take out my dictionary again to quote this gem : rule, n. : a word which does not exist "in real life". Future rules shall combine roots from at least two different languages ancient or modern, e.g. 'gruenulation', 'chrysomamma'. ---[End Rule]--- Validity: OK. This doesn't seem to try to redefine "rule" as used in 56:1 and 56:2, so doesn't run into the problems of 56:3. Style: + Short, fromking, and refursive - Not a particularily interesting restriction FR 56:6 * Residue * May 4th 07:20 GMT * VALID * 1 SP >>>>> Refursiveness is in the eye of the beholder. "seuddogo": the sole letter of the alphabet so revered by FRC members, only one of this round's valid rules does not contain it. >>>>> Validity: OK. Style: + Short, fromking and refursive. - A rule about letters does seem just a little unimaginative FL 56:7 * Jeremy * May 6th 15:35 GMT * VALID * 0 SP >>>>>> dogoseul: the letter of the alphabet incompatible with Validity. Unlike the coinage of rules, re-definition gives rise to orphaned meanings. Recapture of these meanings by re-definition may only be by proper english words which are anagrams of the word which previously held that meaning. For example: lure: a submission to the FRC preceded and followed by four or more '>' characters. >>>>>> Validity: I will assume that dogoseul has bilingual roots. I am a little uncertain on the interpretation, but I validate it by benefit of doubt, and hope to be able to make a sensible interpretation whenever difficulties should appear. Style: This one does the "letter" thing too, Also, I am not sure that the refursive bit is intended or just accidental. People are encouraged to mail explanation of their refursives and fromks directly to me, I can't always be trusted see through what you mean ought to fool the others. Note: People may have noticed that I have drifted into a very lenient interpretation of 56:2. I have chosen not to use a strict interpretation of "referring to", feeling that having to use explicit references to earlier lures in all definitions would be more work than fun. And I don't think it is too farfetched to allow allusions, or thematic connections to pass as a reference. Also (by sloopy lure reading this time :) I have found it sufficient that the definition is fromking, although 56:2 states that it is the reference that should be fromking. I will continue to do so, but lures that fulfill the restriction as stated will be more prone to get high SP scores. FL 56:8 * Ronald * May 7th 11:12 GMT * INVALID * -1 SP >>>>> Quidlure: the lure that contains the seuddogo. The next lure must be the quidlure of this round. >>>>> Validity: Another close call. But it seems to imply that there will be only one quidlure in the round, which is clearly incosistent. Style: Sloppy. Also just tries to capitalize on the fromkiness of 56:6, rather than introducing its own. [ FL 56:9 * Ronald * May 7th 13:52 GMT * INVALID * -2 SP ] REJUDGED: FL 56:9 * Ronald * May 7th 13:52 GMT * VALID * +1 SP >>>> Autofromk: a restriction applying also to the lure in which it is formulated; obligatory for FRC members as lures containing zero autofromks are invalid. >>>> Validity: It refers to Ronald's previous lure (the only one without autofromk and being INVALID), but it beats me to see how this reference, or the definition is in any way fromking. If Ronald or anyone come up with a good fromk in this lure, then I may still change my mind. Style: "At least to be sure to follow your own rules!". This is not yet featured in the guide to good FRC style, but it would not have been out of place there. Not very novel otherwise either. Rejudgement: Ronald had indeed told me where the fromk was and I still didn't see it. Shame on me, Style points reimbursed, with extra added for fooling the judge. FS 56:10 * Morendil * May 7th 20:10 GMT * INVALID * 0 SP ---[Begin Rule]--- This lure is fromking ! This lure is refursive ! This lure has lots of rules ! This lure contains "seudoggo" ! This lure does not contain d*g*s**l ! Valid : self-referential _and_ autofromking. --- Validity: This is invalid already after the first two words. You're fromked! Style: + Nicely worded Using all defined words this far Nice touch taboo-wording dogoseul - Definition is very barely refursive, thin reference, and just slightly fromky "seuddogo" is misspelled I even it out on 0 SP. FL 56:11 * Anton * May 8th 13:23 GMT * INVALID * 1 SP >>>>>>>>> Invalid - an invalid letter is one infected with the terrible Mad Rule Disease. Medical Note: Mad Rule Disease, as should be well known to all rule-creators, is a recently discovered illness that afflicts vulnerable new rules. Any such rule containing an invalid letter will only survive if it becomes a valid word on the death of that letter. This recent discovery, it is feared, may quickly spread - as any other letters in such a rule will also become invalid. Fortunately, the only invalid letter at present is "a". It is also known that the seuddogo is immune from this crippling disease. >>>>>>>>> Validity: I said that I am lenient regarding 56:2, but I'm not *that* lenient. There must be *something* in a definition that can pass as a reference to an earlier rule (hardly the case here), and there must be something fromking about it (can't find any in the definition, although the rest of the lure sure has some). Style: Would have liked it to be valid. Now that we are doing letter- type restrictions, they don't come any better than this one, and "Mad Rule Disease" had me laughing out loud. Worth 2 points except for the minus of being invalid so 1 SP coming up. FL 56:12 * Residue * May 9th 03:33 GMT * INVALID * 0 SP >>>>> "puracdric": either not containing dogoseul, or not a lure, but not both. To not be invalid, one must not be unpuracdric. >>>>> Validity: I think 56:7 is clear enough, the dogoseul is "incompatible with validity": Thus no valid submission can contain it. Thus this is invalid. Style: + Trying to make things clearer at one end, and making them more unclear at the other. - Wish it wasn't so clearly invalid though. FS 56:13 * Jeremy * May 9th 16:43 GMT * VALID * 2 SP >>> No is defined as the minimum number (equal to the number of times Stein has declared the author's submissions INVALID since the beginning of this round OR one, if that word is a rule containing more roots from different languages than any previous rule) of words to be defined in future sumbissions. Being inconsistent with no is, of course, a no-no. >>> Validity: OK. Style: Lots of it. Also one of the few rules (only the 2nd really, I think) that is truly refursive, that is where the definition contains a fromky reference. Good work. Nice to get a clear two-pointer. :-D FL 56:14 * Residue * May 9th 17:16 GMT * INVALID * -1 SP >>>>> "dash": the punctuation mark which, wherever it appears in any lure, indicates the one word most closely preceding it is defined by the series of one or more words, ending with a period, most closely following it. In future lures, any word defined using a dash is considered in all ways "given and defined," as required in 56:1 before. Dashes must be used by all future rules to define words. >>>>> Validity: To refer to earlier lures, the "dash" must be a punctuation mark used in earlier lures. Also to autofromk the dash must be ":" as other restrictions apply only to the future. But ":" isn't used for definitions wherever it appears, to wit in lure 56:7: "For example: lure: a submission to the FRC ..." The first ":" here is not for a definition. (and I'm not going to view it as such in retrospect either. I'm not sure what it would mean either). Invalid it is. Style: Not entirely bad. Trying to set up a trap where people would define words by accident. But could have been cleverer and more well thought out, seems a little hasty. I decide slightly on the minus side. FL 56:15 * Ronald * May 13th 07:28 GMT * INVALID * +1 SP >>>> Sumbission: an invalid submission to the FRC. Ipsodefydogo: the letter that occurs the most times in rule definitions. All words defined in lures henceforth shall contain the ipsodefydogo. >>>> Validity: "Sumbission" does not exist in real life, so it should have roots from two different languages, "Sum" is OK, but "bission"? Ronald's private hints did not shed light on this, so I asked him to give me the language roots used in the rule, and he just gave ipso/defy/dogo again. So I presume that there is no such thing as a "bission" root, and invalidate the lure. Style: Big plus: Seeing the loop hole created by Jeremy's spelling error. Small minuses: Failing to see that "Sumbission" would be a rule also, and at least trying to make a case for "bission" Trying to give the seuddogo yet another name, yep I kid you not, and thus ending up with a restriction very functionally similar to 56:6 -- Judge Stein