Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 22:05:22 -0800 From: "Luke M. Vaughn" To: frc@nvg.unit.no Subject: Round 64: Final Summary As you may have guessed, Round 64 is over. Andrew is the winner, wizard, and new Judge. He had a very good showing in this round with a number of bold rules. Some of them were even valid. And so I wish good luck to him next round. ---- Eligiblity and Style Player Style Eligible until: ------ ----- --------------- Andrew, +5 Sun, 15 Sep 1996 23:12:04 +0200 Ed G. +2.5 Ineligible Anton +2 Ineligible Jeremy +1.5 Ineligible Ed M. +1 Ineligible All others Ineligible -==-==- Proposal 64:A To make 64:3 valid. For: Peter, Ed Graham, Doug, Anton, Andrew Against: Declared valid by fiat of judge(Actually Harry is a nice little VW rabbit ;) --==--== *64:1* Anton, Tue, 27 Aug 1996 15:53:36 +0200 *VALID* Style: +2 >>>>>>>>> Welcome to the twilight world of the info-traffikers. A shadowy group, we use this forum to exchange our latest findings. To discourage freeloaders, we require that all submissions (aka "rules") must contain three (numbered) items: one original revelation (which must be true), one unsubstantiated rumour (which may or may not be true), and one piece of malicious misinformation (which must be false). To avoid giving too much away to the authorities - who are always on our trail - submissions must not identify in any way which of their items is of which type. However, as old news is no news, items in earlier rules may be freely identified. My first offerings to this forum are: 1) To preserve our mutual security, rules must never refer to other traffikers by name. 2) Rules with more than three numbered items are clearly police plants, and hence must be invalid. 3) There is an informer in our midst! >>>>>>>> Judgement: Valid. And as a wise man poking his head out of a jungle said many, many times "Very Interesting" (Bonus Scooby snacks to the identifier of the person I'm refering to) Style: As another person said upon the destruction of an S.U.X. 9000, "I like it!" (No bonus scooby snacks here... Everybodies seen 'Robocop'). Very nicely done, Anton. You have once again upheld an honorable and mostly unstated FRC tradition of tottaly changing around what the Judge was thinking when e propsed the theme, without touching the form of the theme. The grouped sets of 'items' is a good idea, and a challenging one for everyone, including me. In all I think this is a good start to what looks to be a promising round in the 'classic' style. *64:2* Ed Murphy, Tue, 27 Aug 1996 16:50:11 +0200 *INVALID* Style: +0.5 >>>>>> All submissions must contain one or more unnumbered items, all of which must be entirely true. False numbered items are considered as merely a required attachment to their respective submissions, and have no effect on gameplay apart from being false statements. I decline to state at this time whether true numbered items affect gameplay apart from being true statements. 1) Each submission must be helpful by revealing for at least one previous numbered item whether it is true; but must not pre-empt other helpful users by doing so for *all* numbered items a single previous submission. 2) No submission may identify whether a previously numbered item is a revelation, rumour or misinformation. 3) I am not the informer. >>>>>> Judgement: I was rereading 64:1 when I hit upon the key point that decided this one for me. And I quote: "To avoid giving too much away to the authorities - who are always on our trail - submissions must not identify in any way which of their items is of which type." It makes no limitation on this for nummeration of items, in other words an item is an item, numbered or not. In this rule, Ed M. says that unnumbered items are always true. But this conflicts with 64:1. Thus this rule must be invalid. Style: The items are interesting, however not enough to outweigh the flaws in the other portion. Aside from the obvious problem of the unnumbered item thing, there is the restriction upon false items. Among other points, a well written falsehood can be quite interesting and have farreaching implications. *64:3* Andrew, Tue, 27 Aug 1996 17:42:00 +0200 *VALID* Style: +2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The unnumbered item of any submission must from now on consist of exactly one sentence. 1) No informer shall be eligible to submit. 2) If the inclusion of a fourth numbered item in submissions is enforced, all traffikers shall go on strike. 3) I am the informer. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Judgement: While this is a bold rule, it fails in two respects. First, I've already invalidated 64:2, which came up with the unnumbered item thing, and which that first sentence is obviously based upon. That makes that first part nonsensical. Second, 64:2 was specific in allowing multiple unnumbereds. This contridict it by limiting it specifically to one. But that second point doesn't matter, since the first point is overwhelming. Style: I give Andrew a lot of credit for chutzpah. While I am sure he probably intended for item 3 to be completely false, he left himself open to someone else selecting number two as the misinformation. This could easily allow three to be true, even as a rumor. And even if three was a rumor, if it were true, it would be true. Which if two were false, and one were true, Andrew was leaving himself open to being knocked out at the whim of anybody who felt like it. Like I said, chutzpah. *64:4* Ed Graham, Tue, 27 Aug 1996 20:55:38 +0200 *VALID* Style: +1.5 >>>>>>> Numbered item 3 in submission 64:1 is an unsubstantiated rumour. 1) No informant has so far made any submissions. 2) Each submission by a trafficker contains a code word in one of the numbered portions. 3) Any and all true provisions must be obeyed. >>>>>>> Judgement: Well, up until this point I have not had to make any real analysis of the validity of the numbered items in a rule. 64:1 I didn't need to because the whole could be taken as valid with no conflicts, and 64:2 and 3 were invalidated on other points. So lets take a look at all of 64:4, shall we. First the statement about 64:1.3. I see no problems with it. Now, 4.1, were it true would be quite fine. Doesn't say yay or nay on the existance of an informant, just says nobody up until now is one. If its false, on the other hand, could be made to imply that one of the first three(four?) submitters is an informant, or it might not. But there is nothing wrong with that. Even if 64:1.3 were a false rumor, there wouldn't be any real problems with this. If 4.2 were true, it is again fine. All it would do is establish the existance of a code word, does nothing to identify or explain the purpose of such a word. And 4.3, were it true, is quite normal. We are after all supposed to obey true portions of rules anyway. Now if it were false, it could be a thorny problem, but I think I see a way out even then. Now, since I can't find any portion of 64:4 that violates 64:1, this rule must be valid. Style: This one is quite good. It follows everything that went before it without risking much in the event that previous rules were ruled invalid. It says something without saying more then it has to, leaving matters open for the future. And it adds fun and intersting bits for others to build upon, should they so choose. *64:5* Andrew, Wed, 28 Aug 1996 12:53:49 +0200 *INVALID* Style: +1 >>>>>>>> This is the first, unnumbered, item in this submission. 1) All future submissions must contain a self-referential clause. 2) Informers lie about there age. 3) Info-traffikers drive on the left the left. 4) Enigma. <<<<<<< Judgement: As I have already commented on, the four numbered item aspect of this rule was quite good and proper. However, the more I think about it the less I can escape the conclusion that the combined use of both of the words 'first' and 'unnumbered' in the first sentence are an inherent inconsistency. Better to avoid any numerical reference at all. So I must declare this rule invalid. Style: Nice try. A very good attempt at falsifying 64:1.2 by demonstration. I wasn't particularly keen on the self-reference thing. Cutesy, but there are only so many different variations without going to the really exotic forms that would get a bit out of theme. Though I must admit a theme based on Doug Hofstadter's chapter on Viral Sentences and Self-Replicating Structures from "Metamagical Themas" would be fun...[Sorry just had to put that in, you might guess what I bought a couple days ago] Anyway, while you deserve a little credit for Enigma, I think it is somewhat counter balanced by the fact that the only numbered item where its truth or falsity at all matters was number one. *64:6* Ed G., Fri, 30 Aug 1996 14:58:40 +0200 *VALID* Style: +1 >>>>>>>> Unnumbered items are not required. 1) I know who the Informant is. 2) Only an Informant must adher to rules contained in a police plant messeage.. 3) The truth or falsity of an unconfirmed Rumour can not be determined from another Rumour. >>>>>>>>> Judgememt: The portion about unnumbered items not being required is no problem, as at this point all we know is that they are one sentence. On item number one, Ed may or may not know who the informant is, since he could easily be the informant. His 64:4.1 said no informant had made any submissions so far. This could easily mean before his submission. Of course, this is all still indetermenant. On number two, I don't see why this would be a problem. And number three is quite sensible. Among other things, if it were true, it would help me in paring things down. Style: Nothing especially daring. But some some good technical portions. *64:7* Jeremy, Fri, 30 Aug 1996 18:24:26 +0200 *VALID* Style: +1.5 >>>>>>> our midst: the group of infotraffickers who have posted valid rules by the end of the round. 1) The informer will rat on anyone whose rule causes (directly or by inference) the informer to be identified. 2) The Police will send a lethal shock through the net to kill anyone the informer rats on. 3) If 3.1 is an original revelation, 3.3 is a true rumour. >>>>>>> Judgement: I see no problems that would arise from 64:6. The only real possible conflicts I can see are in 6.3 and 7.3. But that isn't even a real problem, it just means 7.3 can't be a rumor if 3.3 is a rumor. But that doesn't violate indeterminancy, because 3.1 and 3.3 are still undecided. I can see no reasons to invalidate this one. Style: I like the fact that Jeremy defined something that I wouldn't even have considered needing it, and did so in a way that makes a difference. His required items are also quite interesting, and amusing. *64:8* Ed M., Sat, 31 Aug 1996 16:59:22 +0200 *INVALID* Style: +0.5 >>>>>> Rules proposed by the dead are invalid. 1) Incomplete sentences within a numbered item are considered true. 2) Incomplete sentences within a numbered item are considered false. 3) Incomplete sentences outside of a numbered item render that rule invalid. >>>>>> Judgement: Only problematic part I can see is item three. It has no temporal content, and were this valid, that item would have to be false. Jeremey's definition of 'our midst' is arguably an incomplete sentence, it is written dictionary style and they are typically incomplete sentences. But the rule is already valid. Therefore, because item 3 would have to be applied to 64:7 were it true, and since it can't having come after, as I said it must be false. Now, that on its own wouldn't be much of a problem, except that the other two items are mutually contradictory. Only one of them can be true. The other must be false. Now which is which is impossible to tell at the moment, because I have only been able to find the one incomplete sentence. But to me the spirit of what Anton was meaning with his rule on items not identifying themselves is violated by this combination. First, it is impossible that any of them can be a true rumor. We know 3 must be false. Either a false rumor, or just plain false. And neither one nor two can be a true rumor, because that would place three as the misinformation, and the other(of one and two) as straight truth. This would be the aforementioned impossible situation. Now the letter of rule 64:1 just says, they can't identify themselves as to type. It doesn't say anything directly as to veracity, but that is as much of what that part is about as anything. Therefore, I have to say this one is invalid. Of course if my grammar analysis of the pertainent line in 64:7 is wrong, I'd be happy to reverse myself. (I doubt it, but a point that I admit isn't one of my greatest.) Style: Like the part about the dead. Good spotting of a potential situation created by a previous rule. I'm a bit more indifferent to the incomplete sentence thing. Among other things, I wouldn't have put all three items touching so close together, especially the contradictory items. *64:9* Andrew, Sun, 1 Sep 1996 23:22:18 +0200 *VALID* Style: +1.5 >>>>>>> Any numbered item known to be a Rumour is assumed to be false (and must be treated as such) unless and until such an assumption results in an inconsistency, in which case the item is established as a true Rumour. 1) Traffikers recognise exactly three code words. 2) Only a police plant would include a code word outside a numbered item. 3) Numbered item 3 in submission 64.6 is an Unsubstantiated Rumour. <<<<<< Judgement: I can't see anything wrong with this. The first part is well worded, covers any problems that could arise, and makes my job a little easier. Of the three numbereds, the first two are quite amusing, and leave quite a bit open. And the third is singularly appropriate. May be a few seeming paradoxs in it, but I don't think they are any problems. Style: And yes, it can be hard to write a valid rule. I failed completely my first round(didn't even gain any overall style points), but once you get the hang of things, that can turn around rather quick. I think this submission shows that. I really like that first part. Giving a default option without excluding the other does make things a little easier to handle. And the loops that one's mind can wander through pondering the relationship between 6.3 and 9.3 are wonderful. Personally, I think this is even better then the revelation that Andrew was intending(isn't it amazing how the mind can think one thing and the fingers another?) *64:10* Ed G., Tue, 3 Sep 1996 21:54:44 +0200 *VALID* Style: 0 >>>>> 1) 64:7.3 is malicious misinformation. 2) 64:3.3 is an original revelation. 3) 64:9.1 is an unsubstantiated rumour. >>>>>> Judgement: Unfortunantly there is nothing I can invalidate. Shoot even 1.3 is still semi-covered by Heisenberg. Style: I knew one of these would come up eventually. As some of my professors would say this is a trivial solution to the problem. Unfortunantly, trivial solutions are still valid. If everyone ran with these, we could set a record or two and still be nowhere near finishing. *64:11* Andrew, Sun, 8 Sep 1996 23:12:04 +0200 *VALID* Style: +0.5 >>>>>>> Any numbered item which is required to be true under current assumptions is considered to be an original revelation and must be treated as such as long as it is consistent to do so. 1) Numbered item 3 in submission 64:6 is true. 2) "Rumour" is a code word 3) Numbered item 3 in submission 64:4 is true. <<<<<< Judgement: The first part is an extension of part of Andrew's rule 64:9 with a slight twist. Luckily for Andrew, he put in the consistency clause or it would be all over. (Double lucky for getting this rule in with ten minutes to spare) And I have no quibbles with the numbereds. Style: Its an ok rule. The first part could have been much more interesting if Andrew had said true rumor instead of o.r., it would have made for a very nice little set of asymetric rules. I do like that the item 1 here contridicts 9.3 ever so slightly without violating anything. Luke Vaughn | Home page: lvaughn@efn.org | http://www.efn.org/~lvaughn The only things known to go faster than ordinary light is monarchy, according to the philosopher Ly Tin Weedle. He reasoned like this: you can't have more than one king, and tradition demands that there is no gap between kings, so when a king dies the succession must therefore pass to the heir *instantaneously*. Presumably, he said, there must be some elementary particles -- kingons, or possibly queons -- that do this job, but of course succession sometimes fails if, in mid-flight, they strike an anti-particle, or republicon. His ambitious plans to use his discovery to send messages, involving the careful torturing of a small king in order to modulate the signal, were never fully expanded because, at that point, the bar closed. -- (Terry Pratchett, Mort)