Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 16:35:53 +0100 (BST) From: Anton G Cox To: frc@nvg.unit.no Subject: Round 60, closing summary Round 60 is now over, having never quite got off the ground... Player Style Eligible until ------ ----- -------------- Luke -1.5 Mon 15 Jul 1996 04:48:40 (+0100) Winner Ronald +2.0 Wizard Sharkey +1.0 ..Residue +1.0 *60:1* Sharkey, Wed 3 Jul 1996 06:42:34 (+0100) *VALID* Style: +1.0 >>>>> We have stumbled upon the Faerie Court, where the denizens are engaged in wild debate over matters which matter only to them. After some effort to get their attention, they explain one principle which rules over them: A statement which is false in the human world is true and must be obeyed. >>>>> Validity: No problems. There are no false statements here to threaten validity. The only statements that exist in either world as far as I am concerned are those contained in any rules. Style: A good start to the round. The restriction is simple but potent - already the round seems likely to get interesting rather quickly. I like the first sentence too. The rule seems to be in keeping with the suggested subtheme ("One-liners") and future rules that blatantly flout this will be frowned upon. *60:2* Ronald, Wed 3 Jul 1996 09:36:48 (+0100) *VALID* Style: +2.0 >>>>> A statement which is true in the human world is false in the Faerie world and must be disobeyed. For the purpose of this round the FRC is part of the Faerie world. >>>>> Validity: This rule, if valid, makes all true statements in the human world false in the Faerie world, and vice versa. Normally, it is FRC custom to ignore whether a statement is true in the "real world" or not, but clearly we have to take more care here. FRC custom can be followed concerning the first paragraph of 60:1, and the second sentence of 60:2, which can both be false in the human world without any problems. So, potential problems are the remaining sentences. Firstly, consider A statement which is false in the human world is true and must be obeyed. On first reading, I took this to implicitly include "in the Faerie world" after the word "true" - but this is unnecessary. If "true" is taken to refer to the world of the statement, then it is clearly false in the human world, and hence true in the Faerie world. But all that matters here is that it does not (in the human world) refer to the Faerie world - where this round takes place - so it is safe to follow FRC custom here too. Finally we have the first statement of 60:2. For the rule to be valid this must be true in the (FRC and hence) Faerie world, so false in the human one. Without the "and must be disobeyed." this would not be possible, but the 'and' clause saves the rule. Style: I like this rule. It imitates the first one, but has quite a different effect, and makes good use of the structure of the first rule's restriction (both the ambiguous "true" and the "and") to avoid invalidity. It is also good that it clarifies where the FRC lies this round. Short but sweet too - it is certainly a one-liner in spirit. Making the Judge work this hard on only the second rule is pretty good going as well... *60:3* TAFNA "Residue", Sun, 7 Jul 1996 23:24:26 (+0100) *INVALID* Style: +1.0 If not all yes-or-no questions can be truthfully answered, then those that can have the same truthful answer in both the human and Faerie worlds. Must the next valid rule--assuming there is one--contain a yes-or-no question that cannot be truthfully answered (known henceforth as a "mad" question)? Validity: The first part of this rule is of the form "If A then B". This must be true in the Faerie world for the rule to be valid, and hence false in the Human world. So in the Human world, A must be true and B false. Now comes the part of my judgement that may be regarded as contentious. In my opinion, this implies that in the Faerie world, A must be false and B true. In an earlier judgement I remarked that > The only statements that exist in either world as far as I am concerned > are those contained in any rules. - but this is not a contradiction, as I regard a rule containing the statement "If A then B" as containing both A and B (in the sense that they then become statements existing in the two worlds). This seems the only sensible way to proceed (especially when the analysis of a rule depends so delicately on the truth values of these sub-statements). But now we have in the Faerie world that not A gives i) All Y/N questions can be truthfully answered (in the Faerie world) and B in the Faerie world gives (with the above) ii) All Y/N questions have the same truthful answer in both worlds. But in the Human world B false gives iii) There exists a Y/N question that can be truthfully answered (in the Human world) that does not have the same truthful answer in both worlds. Now ii) and iii) are contradictory, so the rule is invalid. Style: A very nice attempt to make a restriction in the form of a question - and a particularly vicious one at that! (+1.5) Also, the rule respects the spirit of the subtheme. Not however the most readable first sentence - it caused the Judge some parsing problems... (-0.5) *60:4* Luke, Mon 8 Jul 1996 04:48:40 (+0100) *VALID* Style: -1.5 >>>>>> Looking around the Faerie Court, a bewildering display of fey beings was seen. After many ignored questions, disgusted looks, and a short and unamusing period experience with a donkey's head, a few words of explaination finally emerged: "A leprechaun will always speak contrary to other fairy folk." A piping voice quickly said "That's a lie!" >>>>>>>>> Validity: No problems that I can see. Style: This rule does not seem to do anything at all! I can detect no real restriction that is imposed on any future rules (-1). The idea of a contrary leprechaun was potentially of merit, but the effect is then lost as we learn this is false in the Faerie world. It does not seem much of a one-liner either; all the previous rules have been relatively lean and stripped down to the essentials, whereas much of the first paragraph of this rule could have been omitted without any loss to the rule (-0.5). Also, it is hard to see what the "few words of explaination" actually explain... The donkey's head was appropriate, but not I am afraid meriting any gain in style. (ex-)Judge Anton