Date: Tue, 02 Jul 96 14:04:03 SET From: KUNNE@frcpn11.in2p3.fr To: frc@nvg.unit.no Subject: Round59 summary Eligibility and Style points: Anton G Cox Mon, 1 Jul 1996 15:56:59 +2 points Winner Sharkey Mon, 1 Jul 1996 00:39:57 +4.5 points Wizard Jeremy Selengut Sun, 30 Jun 1996 20:40:28 +3.5 points Stein Kulseth Mon, 1 Jul 1996 14:58:12 +2 points Doug Chatham Thu, 27 Jun 1996 13:14:43 +2 points Morendil Wed, 26 Jun 1996 12:00:00 +1 point Jesse Welton Mon, 1 Jul 1996 14:57:06 +0.5 points Luke M. Vaughn Wed, 26 Jun 1996 12:00:00 0 points === *59:1* Doug Chatham Fri, 21 Jun 1996 13:14:43 *VALID* Style: 0.5 >>>>> Each rule shall contain the clause "The following provisions shall hold unless a future rule explicitly states otherwise:" immediately followed by a list of provisions which are to hold unless a future rule explicitly states otherwise. The following provisions shall hold unless a future rule explicitly states otherwise: 1. No rule may be longer than this one. 2. Rules shall not refer to any particular person or place outside the Fantasy Rules Committee. >>>>> Right, the round has started. +1 for the provision that I think will make victims, -1 for the other which is more ordinary. And a half point added in for the first sentence. ============================= *59:2* Jeremy D Selengut Fri, 21 Jun 1996 16:13:49 *INVALID* Style: 0 >>>>>> Definition: IMMUTABLE PROVISION -- One not preceded by a clause stating whether and/or how it may be changed by future rules. Immutable provisions may not be altered by future rules. The following provisions shall hold unless a future rule explicitly states otherwise: 1. Any rule containing a list of more than two provisions following the clause which precedes this list may not contain any immutable provisions. 2. Provisions in a list such as this one must be referred to (if they are referred to at all) using a labelling system consistent with the labelling of this provision as 2M2. Provision 1M1 is now altered: No rule with the number '1' in its identifier (i.e. the identifier of this rule is 59:2) may be longer than the shortest rule with a '1' in its identifier. >>>>>> This rule is INVALID because it is inconsistent with provision 1 of 59:1. I have two different arguments. Of course I realize that 59:2 attemps to "alter" the provision on the length of rules. However, 59:1 states that "provisions shall hold unless a future rule explicitly states otherwise". Well, 59:2 does nowhere say that the first provision does no longer *hold*. It only attemps to "alter" the first provision, which is something else, IMO. In fact the situation is worse and that's my second argument. Jeremy defines an provision to be "immutable" if it is "not preceded by a clause stating wether and/or how it may be changed by future rules." However, Doug's clause "The following provisions shall hold unless a future rule explicitly states otherwise" does not state whether the provisions following may be *changed*. It only states that they might be repealed. Hence by Jeremy's own definition these provisions are immutable and me therefore not be changed. The consequence of the my two arguments is Jeremy's rule has to obey the restriction of the length. As it is not clear how one has to determine the length of a rule I asked Jeremy in what way is his rule 59:2 is shorter than 59:1? On which the answer was that it was not intended to be shorter. Stylepoints: I liked that Jeremy used a label without explicitly saying what it means. This means that another Player could have come up with a consistent but non-trivial labeling scheme (+1). However, the 2M2 followed by 1M1 makes this almost impossible (-1). Not seeing the difference between a rule-change and a rule-repeal is rather unstyleful, but this was already punished by invalidity. ============================= *59:3* Morendil Sat, 22 Jun 1996 01:25:11 *INVALID* Style: +1.5 >>>>> This Rule does not need to follow "The following provisions shall hold unless a future rule explicitly states otherwise:" with anything, since this is one of the provisions in 59:1 that immediately follows that clause. In addition, Rules may be of any length. ROOL 1 : In this Round, a "ROOL" shall be a numbered provision. ROOL 2 : Any Rule may contain one PROP to change, repeal or add one ROOL. ROOL 3 : The Judge decides if the PROP passes, irrespective of the Validity of the Rule. If e so decides, the PROP takes effect. ROOL 4 : the ROOLs may not be changed by future Rules. >>>>> 59:1 contains the following provision (or restriction as we usually call it): Each rule shall contain the clause "The following provisions shall hold unless a future rule explicitly states otherwise:" immediately followed by a list of provisions which are to hold unless a future rule explicitly states otherwise. Note that the restriction is the *whole* sentence, starting with "Each" and up to and including "otherwise". However, Morendil in his statement This Rule does not need to follow "The following provisions shall hold unless a future rule explicitly states otherwise:" with anything, since this is one of the provisions in 59:1 that immediately follows that clause. supposes that the provision is only the part *after* the familiar clause between quotation marks. As I don't agree with this supposition, it follows that the Rule is inconsistent with 59:1, as there is no list following the famous clause. I think that the phrase In addition, Rules may be of any length. would pass as an *explicit* way to abolish the first provision of 59:1. But it's borderline. I suggest humbly somewhat simpler constructions, to get this round started..... Style: I like the Rule very much. The loophole Morendil tries to exploit is nice (+1). I also like the way he tries to structure rule amendments with his ROOLs (+1). However, I dislike the fact that the acceptance of PROPs is the sole decision of the Judge. It seems sufficient to state that a PROP stands or falls with the (in)validity of the Rule in which it appears. (-0.5) ==================================== *59:4* Jesse Welton Mon, 24 Jun 1996 14:57:06 *VALID* Style: +0.5 >>>>> Each player begins with 1 Repeal Point (RP). For each valid rule, a player earns 2 RP, available immediately. Repeal of any provision costs 3 RP, one of which goes to the author of that provision. The following provisions shall hold unless a future rule explicitly states otherwise: 1. No rule may repeal any provision of the immediately preceding rule. 2. No rule may leave its author with more than six RP. >>>>> Sabre-Wulf clocked this rule about one minute before Stein's. I can think of a way in which this rule is not longer than 59:1. Also, no reference is made to a place or person outside the FRC. For your information: I interpret this rule as applying to 59:1, that is, Doug earned RPs. Style: The RP idea can work out nicely (+1). However, it might also turn the round into a trivial counting game, especially if the number of submitted rules stays small (-0.5). ========================== *59:5* Stein.Kulseth Mon, 24 Jun 1996 14:58:12 *VALID* Style: +2 >>>> The following provisions shall hold unless a future rule explicitly states otherwise: 1. Each provision must hold for at least two valid rules. 2. No provision may hold for more than five valid rules. 3. If it can be decided that a provision does not hold for a given rule, then the rule must specifically disobey that provision. >>>> Although this rule game in after Jesse's, there is no interference. It's also consistent with 59:1. Style: Stein realises that I like such kind of rules (+2). More justification is impossible without giving the idea away :-) ========================== *59:6* Jeremy D Selengut Mon, 24 Jun 1996 20:40:28 *VALID* Style: +1.5 >>>>>> Anything which is not preceded by a statement indicating that said thing is a provision is not a provision. Anything which is not a provision is immutable and unrepealable. The following provisions shall hold unless a future rule explicitly states otherwise: 1. A rule which states the word "otherwise" explicitly is not considered to have caused past provisions to lose effect. 2. Any rule containing only the clause heading this paragraph and the required list of provisions earns one bonus repeal point. >>>>>> Jeremy explained to me in what way his rule is not longer than 59:1. As that definition of "length" makes sense and as previous valid rules are consistent with that definition, his rule passes that restriction. FRC custom has it that if some restriction is ambiguous (like the length restriction in 59:1), then subsequent rules may and will sharpen this definition. As an example: Jeremy's rule counts more lines than 59:1. This implies that "length" can no longer be defined as "number of lines", but apparently is something else. The bottom line is that it is wise to tell me (either privately or via the server) in what way the rule you submitted is not longer then 59:1. It is wise to do so as Yours Truly can not always be trusted to figure it out for himself. Note that your definition of length must be consistent with all previous valid rules, meaning that if you take "length" to be defined as X, then previous valid rules must follow X also. Apart from this the rule does not give any particular problems, although I am not quite sure about the implications of provision 1) Note: For this Judge "A Rule that.." and "A valid rule that..." mean the same. This was already my habit, but amusingly it is now forced upon me, otherwise this rule does not fulfill provision 2) of 59:4. Style: Quite amusing and on theme this one. Jeremy defines what a provision is, which is quite useful (+0.5). He poses two potential traps (+1) ================= *59:7* Luke M. Vaughn Mon, 24 Jun 1996 23:08:18 *INVALID* Style: +1 >>>>>> The following provisions shall hold unless a future rule explicitly states otherwise: 1. The length of a rule shall forthwith be defined as either the number of provisions contained therein, or the length of the rule in characters. >>>>>> "The following provisions" (plural) is followed by one (1) provision only. If the phrase would have been authored by Luke, then I would have let it pass as a typo. But the clause is obligatory and therefore its implication of more than one provision is obligatory too, IMO. Style: This rule succeeds in placing yet another consistent definition of "length" (+1). ======================== *59:8* Sharkey Tue, 25 Jun 1996 00:39:57 *VALID* Style: +1.5 >>>>>>> Provisions 1 and 2 from 59:1 and provision 3 from 59:5 do not hold for this rule. However, they are not repealed, so they do hold for future rules which do not explicitly state otherwise. The following provisions shall hold unless a future rule explicitly states otherwise: A. From now on, each rule must list its provisions in a different manner. B. This provision holds. >>>>>>> Bravo for the first paragraph, which jumps over all outstanding booby traps (+2 SP). The second provision is rather meager (-0.5) I promise a bonus of 2 Style Points for the first player who succeeds in effectively amending a provision. ===================== *59:9* Anton G Cox Tue, 25 Jun 1996 15:56:59 *VALID* Style: +2.5 >>>>>>> A rule may contain borowings from earlier rules that are not explicitly stated. The lender's repeal points also become available for use, but must be repaid on judgement of the rule. For example, the second paragraph of this rule will begin with the first clause of 59:5, thus allowing this rule to repeal the first provision of 59:1 with immediate effect. i) No provision may repeal an earlier provision. ii) Borrowings may not be taken from provisions. >>>>>>> I borrow my judgment from 58:1 : It does not contradict itself (or anything else). (Note that Stein's third provision is obeyed in a way consistent with the length constraints. Too bad that the length-provision is repealed but that I still have to count characters...) I like the rule very much. It borrows the infamous obligatory clause from another rule. It is not explicitly using "otherwise" and is therefore allowed to repeal provisions. For which bold accomplishment I promised 2 points. I am not sure if I understand the point borrowing thingy completely but at first sight it looks like a very nasty trap (+0.5). =================== *59:10* Luke M. Vaughn Wed, 26 Jun 1996 00:30:21 *INVALID* Style: -1 >>>>>> Rules can't contradict themselves, unless the purpose of rule is to be contradictory, and the contradiction has no effect whatsoever. The following provisions shall hold unless a future rule explicitly states otherwise: Primus: The final provision(of this rule) will contradict this one. Secondus: This provision serves no purpose. Teritus: This provision agrees with the first provision(of this rule). >>>>>> Luke writes: Not quite sure I completely understood 59:9, but I think I understood enough of it to understand we don't need to worry about length anymore(I think) This is only partly true, but Luke makes a more fatal error. 59:5 makes a victim. Its second provision was: 2. No provision may hold for more than five valid rules. If 59:10 is valid then the 2nd provision of 59:1 has hold for the valid rules 59:1, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10, that is for more than five valid rules. (Not in 8, where it was said that it did not hold.) It might be argued that the provision did not hold yet in the rule where it was stated, but the way 59:1 was phrased makes me think otherwise. Note that only the 1st provision of 59:1 was repealed in 59:9, not the second one. Luke remarks about paradoxes I do not understand. Regular Ordinances 6 implies that rules must be consistent also with themselves. The rule does not contain any new restriction which I rate negatively. ================== *59:11* Doug Chatham Wed, 26 Jun 1996 21:48:25 *INVALID* Style: +1.5 >>>>>>>>>> The second provision of 59:1 is hereby repealed. The second sentence of this paragraph ends with the last three words of the first paragraph of 59:9, so that this rule can (and hereby does) repeal the first provision of 59:6 The author of this rule would like to and hereby does mention the following places and persons outside the Fantasy Rules Committee, in specific violation of the second provision of the first rule of this round: Disneyland, Hong Kong, William Jefferson Clinton, George Herbert Walker Bush, London, Vladivostok, Washington, Honolulu, and New Jersey. (With such excess verbiage, the author hopes the first provision of the first rule of this round is also violated. The author apologizes to the Judge for the excess.) The following provisions shall hold unless a future rule explicitly states otherwise: One: A rule may only be borrowed from once. Two: Future rules may not create new methods of gaining or losing Repeal Points. >>>>> Suppose this rule is valid. Then the two provisions of rule 59:4 have held in the valid rules 4,5,6,8,9 and 11. That violates provision 59:5:2, which states that "No provision may hold for more than five valid rules". I do include 59:4 in this list, because 59:1 states that provisions "are to hold unless a future rule explicitly states otherwise" IMO this means that the provisions also hold in the rule where they were originally phrased. (Similar to our custom about restrictions which hold immediately unless stated explicitly that they hold only for future rules.) Note: Morendil's argument doesn't convince me: if I would have been wrong in an earlier rule is no argument to invalidate another rule by another Member. However, I got hold of a thicker dictionary. My conclusion from the various examples is that 59:1 does state an obligation rather than something that will take place in the future. Style: Too bad it fails, the two provisions are nice restrictions (+0.5). Also, the rule manages quite correctly to autorize its repeals and the necessary disobediences (+1). =================== *59:12* Morendil Thu, 27 Jun 1996 01:27:00 *INVALID* Style: -0.5 >>>>>> A Valid Rule's author is awarded 1 RP per provision in eir Rule. * no Rule may leave its author with more than 10 RP. * no Rule may contain more provisions than this one * no Rule may borrow more than 4 RP * no Rule may refer to a person not associated with Nomic or a Nomic game * no Rule may repeal more than two provisions * no Rule may repeal provisions of posterior Rules Oh, yes, I almost forgot : the second provision of 59:9 is repealed ! (Thanks to Morendil for the quoted clause in 59:3, which I'll insert before the first star, and thanks to Peter Suber for giving us such a wellspring of ideas.) >>>>> Provision 59:1(1) was repealed by 59:9. Therefore this rule must specifically disobey that provision by 59:5(3). Hence this rule must be "longer" than 59:1. I can think of one way in which rule can be "longer" than 59:1, and which is consistent with the "length" of previous rules. I asked Morendil in what way his rule is "longer". He suggested - that his rule has 6 provisions, which is more than 59:1. However, this is inconsistent with 59:5 which has 3 provisions but has to be "not longer" than 59:1 - that his rule has more characters than 59:1. True, but so does 59:6. (Counting letters and blanks between words as characters and not counting characters for the 1 blank line in 59:1 and 2 blank lines in 59:6). On the other hand, 59:9 for which 59:1(1) did not hold, and which therefore must be "longer" too, has less characters. As this "length" restriction is getting a bit old, I'll give the solution away. My solution....and hopefully I am not mistaken on this. The only consistent way to define "length" is the length in characters of the longest line in the the rule. We have Rule Char Constraint: 59:1 76 59:4 69 "not longer" 59:5 67 "not longer" 59:6 57 "not longer" 59:8 74 59:1(1) does not hold, but neither does 59:5(3) 59:9 77 59:1(1) is repealed, "longer" 59:10 70 "longer" but fails on this and other points 59:11 80 "longer" length correct but fails on another point 59:12 73 "longer" but fails on length Style: A bunch of other RP changes (-1.0) Borrows from an invalid rule, which I think is inconsistent too. (But even longer to explain, -0.5) Reference to Peter Suber (+1) ================= *59:13* Anton G Cox Thu, 27 Jun 1996 19:13:36 *INVALID* Style: -0.5 >>>>>>> This rule borrows the first clause of the second paragraph of 59:9, to be used in the corresponding position here, and repeals the second provision of 59:5. 3: No player may have less than -6 RPs. 2: Any rule with more than two provisions must repeal an earlier provision. 1: No player may repeal one of their own provisions. >>>>>>> The rule states: "Any rule with more than two provisions must repeal an earlier provision." However, 59:5 (*that* deadly rule again!) did have more than three provisions, but nevertheless did not repeal a rule. Note: FRC custom has it that "Any rule" does mean something else than "Any future rule" or "From now on". Style: So far RP points could be negative: it's good that somebody noticed this. However, sofar these RPs were not very toxic, why then to put the barrier at something unnatural as a negative value? ======================== *59:14* Jeremy Selengut Fri, 28 Jun 1996 22:34:28 *INVALID* Style: +2 >>>>>> This rule is longer than 59:1, it has more characters in a line than it does. This rule makes reference to Nikita Kruschev because I like the sound of it. This rule plunders the graves of the ineligible (Luke, Morendil and Doug) and picks the pocket of an erstwhile vacationer (Stein) to transfer a total of 7 repeal points to the author of this rule. Provision 59:5(1) does not hold for this rule (but is not repealed) The following provisions shall hold unless a future rule explicitly states {a word borrowed from 59:1 which renders this rule valid}: alpha: This provision repeals the first provision of the previous valid rule. beta: Any provision which no longer holds and which cannot, by its nature, be specifically disobeyed, must not be specifically disobeyed. >>>>>> Jeremy is specically disobeying the provisions from 59:1 and 59:4. This makes me think that I am missing something, because in my book, 59:1(2) is not yet repealed. If somebody tells me what I haven't seen, I'll change my judgment, The second provision of 59:1 should have been *explicitly* stated not to hold for this rule or have been repealed explicitly. The argument is exactly the same as in 59:10. 59:5(2) states: No provision may hold for more than five valid rules. If 59:14 is valid then the 2nd provision of 59:1 has hold for the valid rules 59:1, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 14, that is for more than five valid rules. (Not in 8, where it was said that it did not hold.) It might be argued that the provision did not hold yet in the rule where it was stated, but the way 59:1 was phrased makes me think otherwise. Note that only the 1st provision of 59:1 was repealed in 59:9, not the second one. Style: The self-referencing way in which provision alpha slips through is quite amusing. (+1) So is stealing RPs to end up with more than six. (+1). ============================== *59:15* Sharkey Sat, 29 Jun 1996 01:25:22 *INVALID* Style: +3 >>>>> The following provisions shall hold unless a future rule explicitly states otherwise: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Left Provision) | (Right Provision) The first two | All amendments to provisions of 59:5 | provisions must be are hereby amended | made by provisions. to include the word | "consecutive" | immediately before | "valid rules." | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Only one form of a provision may exist at any one time. The change to the first provision of 59:5 takes effect immediately, and it holds in its amended form. However the second provision of 59:5 does not hold for this rule, even though the change takes effect immediately. The third provision of 59:5 holds for this rule if and only if 59:14 is invalid. >>>>> I was quite happy with this rule until.... 59:6:1 states A rule which states the word "otherwise" explicitly is not considered to have caused past provisions to lose effect. Sharkey's rule uses "otherwise". Therefore it is not allowed to "cause past provision to lose effect". The two amendments change the effect of the "past" version of provisions 59:5:1 and 59:5:2. However, this I can let by, if I interpret the amendment to mean that 59:5:1 and 59:5:2 are still with us and effective. Unfortunately, the rule sins otherwise. Sharkey states: "the second provision of 59:5 does not hold for this rule" which obviously makes 59:5:2 lose the desired effect, at least for this rule. Style: Amendments! (+2). Plus an extra bonus point because of the `paradox control'. As Sharkey phrases it: If 59:14 is valid I have to make 59:5.3 NOT hold to avoid a paradox trying to disobey 59:5.2 -- if it holds it does not obey itself, and if it does not hold, there are no provisions I can use to disobey it. (And also because I don't know whether to disobey 59:9.1 or not.) The bonus is there also because I want to give at least once the maximum number of style points. Greetings, Ronald