Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 14:17:21 +0100 (BST) From: Anton G Cox To: frc@nvg.unit.no Subject: Round 65 - Final Summary Round 65 is now over, and so (having done all the work) ex-Judge Andrew has merely left it to me to post this final summary, and appoint Ed M and Don the new Judge and Wizard for the forthcoming round. Would that it were always so straightforward... Judge Anton Player Style points Don +4 New Wizard Morendil +3.5 Ed M +2 New Judge Ed G +0.5 Peter 0 Ronald 0 Luke -1 Rule 65.1 by Morendil. VALID. Style +1.5 --------------------------------------- > -[Begin Rule]- > > Yes, fellow FRCers ! 'Sincerity', as our Esteemed Judge has so nobly > declared, shall be the watchword of this Round. > > In this spirit I'll add that I sincerely hope no one will be hampered > by the one measly restriction I'll state, to wit : that no Rule of this > Round should, more than this one, practice what it preaches. > > -[End Rule]- > -[Morendil]- ---------------------------------------- Validity: Fine. Style: Nice. +1. Flattery will get you everywhere. +0.5 (But only once :] ) Rule 65.2 by Peter. INVALID. Style 0 ------------------------------------- > Future rules in this round must apply to ALL valid rules > in the round-- they may not apply solely to future rules. ------------------------------------- Validity: Anything which applies to ALL rules must apply to itself and hence must practise what it preaches, and hence will be invalid. so this rule cannot be valid. Style: Not a very interesting restriction at all. Afterthought: I still think this is invalid, more precisely because 65.1 applies to all rules, and rules after this would apply to all rules, so this rule would more or less apply to all rules, as it preaches. Rule 65.3 by Don. INVALID. Style +0.5 ------------------------------------------------ > Ease of understanding, an ideal to which all rules, valid ones at least, > should aspire, is generated, primarily, by a lack, complete and total, > of clauses which are relative in the sentences, their centres at least, > of a rule. > > Rules which are submitted and which are valid (as judged by the Judge, > who is esteemed by all (or at least most) of the players who are > committee members in good standing) must follow this ideal which was > written by me, who am to be known, at least by, in this round, the FRC, > as the Simplifier, today. > >>>>> -------------------------------------------------- Validity: My Profound Apologies, Don, for mistakenly sending you my previous message instead of to the list, and more so for changing my mind in the mean time. If Valid rules must obey the ideal, then this rule must obey the ideal (viz "ease of understanding"), which it patently does not. Style: Aaaaarrrrgggh! Plus marks for the attempt, Negative ones 'cause I don't know what a relative clause is. (total +0.5) Rule 65.4 by Ronald. INVALID. Style 0 ------------------------------------- > >>>>>>>>>>> > a) Restrictions must be numbered, except when there is only one in a > rule. > b) Each rule shall have three restrictions. > c) Each rule shall disobey one of these three restrictions > >>>>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------- Validity: Unfortunately, by obeying b) and c), this rule practises what it preaches to a greater extent than does 65.1 . Hence invalid. Style: Too similar to the last round. Rule 65.5 by Don. VALID. Style +2. ---------------------------------- > >>>>> > I find the letters 'x' and 'q' to be extremely unaesthetic. Pour quoi? > Because they are redundant and repetitive. I loathe and despise > repetitivity. > > So, to be nice to me, all future rules will cease and desist from their > ugly, unaesthetic behaviour, and omit all occurences of the letters 'q' > and 'x'. > >>>>> ---------------------------------- Validity: No problems. Style: Nicely done. The fact that 65.1 contains neither forbidden letter is a bonus. Rule 65.6 by Ed G. UNSUCCESSFUL. Style +0.5 ----------------------------------------- > Future Rules in this Round should use simple, not complex, declarative > sentences with at most one, unambiguous adjective per sentence. ----------------------------------------- Validity: This rule fails by 65.5. However, as Ed hadn't seen 65.5 before posting, I've ruled this Unsuccessful, not Invalid. Style: Doesn't do very much for me, this rule. Rule 65.7 by Luke. VALID. Style -1 ---------------------------------- > I think that first person tenses are highly inappropriate for this round. > Therefore I think that we should refrain from using them in the formation of > our rules. ---------------------------------- Validity: No problem. Style: Hmm. Negative points because 65.1 and 65.5 are both in the first person, and because the restriction is too weakly worded. It does avoid practising its preaching though. Rule 65.8 by Morendil. VALID. Style +2 -------------------------------------- > -[Begin Rule]- > > Former Rules of this round have had a lot to recommend them, and it is to be > hoped that many more will come to denounce such evils as the utterly >despicable,totally contemptible and incontrovertibly ignominous redundancy and > repetitiveness, or the hubris displayed by references to oneself - which this > author concurs is to be avoided at all costs. Added to this list shall be >the passive voice,which in future Rules should be used no more than necessary; > modestly, this Rule shall be taken as a model of when it _is_ necessary. > > -[End Rule]- ---------------------------------------- Validity: No problems are visible to the Judge. Style: I like this rule. 'Nuff said. Rule 65.9 by Ed M. VALID. Style +1 ---------------------------------- > Hypocrisy certainly isn't the norm lately. In this spirit, all future > rules must consist of an odd number of sentences. ---------------------------------- Validity: Looks fine to me. Style: Short, but thematic. Rule 65:10 by Don. VALID. Style +1.5 ------------------------------------ > >>>>> > I thinks that the rules so far aren't confusing enough; thus I > commands that all future rules must contain at least one restriction > that applies to some, but not all, following rules. > >>>>> ------------------------------------ Validity: There is currently no restriction on the use of "I" - only two players who "think" and "concur" that it should be avoided. Hence I see no reason to invalidate this rule. I look forward to seeing how the restriction is applied. (And a rule totally forbidding the first person & similar would be interesting as well...) Style: Quite neat. Extra marks for "I thinks" & "I commands". Rule 65.11 by Ed M. VALID. Style +1 ----------------------------------- > Prime rules have the property that their ordinal number within the round is a > prime number (for instance, 5 or 7). No other rules have this property. > > All future prime rules must contain either an adjective describing spatial > relationship or a sentence written entirely in a language other than English. ----------------------------------- Validity: No problems that I can see. Style: Not very exciting, although it could make future rules interesting. A small plus for the prime number restriction. ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------