From: owner-frc-digest To: frc-digest@nvg.unit.no Subject: frc-digest V1 #199 Reply-To: frc Errors-To: owner-frc-digest Precedence: bulk frc-digest Tuesday, 23 May 1995 Volume 01 : Number 199 Re: 35:S FOR Re: frc-digest V1 #197 Re: frc-digest V1 #197 PAs 4,5 fail; ROUND 36 STARTS New ROs PA6 - vote PA6 - comment and vote First rule of round 36 Judgement 36:1 Re: Judgement 36:1 Re: Judgement 36:1 Proposed 36:2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: peter@wolfe.net (Peter Sarrett) Date: Sun, 21 May 1995 23:36:49 -0700 Subject: Re: 35:S FOR >-> >-> >-> By the way, Stephen, it occurred to me that it would have been >-> *extremely* styleful, if you would have voted AGAINST 35:S yourself >-> > >I did actually think about it, but I was a bit worried about the possibility >of Peter mounting a late challenge in a similar way. You needn't have worried. I was out of town from Wednesday night until just now, and didn't even know about your ballot stuffing until the round was over. Nicely done, by the way. - Peter ------------------------------ From: peter@wolfe.net (Peter Sarrett) Date: Sun, 21 May 1995 23:40:03 -0700 Subject: Re: frc-digest V1 #197 >Those whose mail servers are down 90% >of the time (Peter will remember what I mean) will not slow down delivery >to the rest any more. Hey, I'm happy to report that my return to the FRC comes via a new account with a new provider. Thusfar, the new provider has been extremely reliable. Besides, I'm still rather fond of the way I turned that particular predicament to my advantage. =) - Peter ------------------------------ From: Stephen Turner Date: Mon, 22 May 95 9:05:20 BST Subject: Re: frc-digest V1 #197 Peter writes: - -> - -> Hey, I'm happy to report that my return to the FRC comes via a new account - -> with a new provider. Thusfar, the new provider has been extremely reliable. - -> - -> Besides, I'm still rather fond of the way I turned that particular - -> predicament to my advantage. =) - -> Ah, yes, rule 24.34 (am I sounding like an FRC oldie yet?). A well deserved 3SPs there. - -- Stephen R. E. Turner Stochastic Networks Group, Statistical Laboratory, University of Cambridge e-mail: sret1@cam.ac.uk WWW: http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/~sret1/home.html "10 or 11 degrees C in the south: that's double figures" (ITV Weathercaster) ------------------------------ From: sret1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Stephen Turner) Date: Mon, 22 May 95 09:38 BST Subject: PAs 4,5 fail; ROUND 36 STARTS Proposals PA4 and PA5 have failed. The votes are below. Note that the vote on PA6 is still open until Thursday; votes to date are below. I shall enclose the current ROs in a separate mail. (I have not used the term 'Wizard' in the votes below because they straddled two rounds). According to RO3, I declare that round 36 starts at the time of this mail, viz. 08:38 GMT; that the theme will be 'Alternative Arithmetic'; and that the Wizard has the privilege of posting the first fantasy rule. ============================================================================== PROPOSAL PA4 - permanent RO7 amendment, Vote ended Sa-20-May-95 19:45 >>>> I propose that the reg ords be amended such that RO7 reads: 7. Style Points. For each fantasy rule posted, the Judge shall award X points, where -3<=X<=3. The Judge may use any criteria e sees fit for such awards. >>>> For 3: Dug, Peter, Stein Aga 6: Oerjan, Bruce, Stephen, Ronald , Andre, Jeremy PROPOSAL FAILED PROPOSAL PA5 - permanent RO7 appendment, Vote ended Mo-22-May 08:37 >>>> That if proposal PA4 fails, the following be appended to RO7: Stein Kulseth shall be known and addressed at all times as the Grand High Conjuror. If at some time the Grand High Conjuror is also the Wizard, he shall be known and addressed as 'The Wizard, The Grand High Conjuror'. >>>> For 1: Stephen Aga 5: Stein, Chris, Ronald, Andre, Sagitta PROPOSAL FAILED PROPOSAL PA6 - permanent RO2 appendment, Vote ends Thu May 25nd 12:31 >>>> Replace Regular Ordinance 2 by: "2. Membership. Any person may become a member of this committee by posting in the committee forum a statement of intent to join. A new member may not vote on Proposals, before e has legally posted a Fantasy Rule. A member may resign from the committee at any time." >>>> For 3: Ronald, Stein, Sagitta Aga 0: Stephen R. E. Turner Stochastic Networks Group, Statistical Laboratory, University of Cambridge e-mail: sret1@cam.ac.uk WWW: http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/~sret1/home.html "10 or 11 degrees C in the south: that's double figures" (ITV Weathercaster) ------------------------------ From: Stephen Turner Date: Mon, 22 May 95 9:54:54 BST Subject: New ROs Here are the current ROs. They might change again on Thursday... - -- Stephen R. E. Turner Stochastic Networks Group, Statistical Laboratory, University of Cambridge e-mail: sret1@cam.ac.uk WWW: http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/~sret1/home.html "10 or 11 degrees C in the south: that's double figures" (ITV Weathercaster) ============================================================================== [Note that text in square brackets is not part of the Regular Ordinances] [Historical Note: The FR Committee began life as a registered committee of the Nomic World on-line game, but has survived the disbanding of Nomic World and continues as a fully independent game. The objective is to be the last player able (or willing) to post a legal Fantasy Rule. Previous rounds have included poetry, ascii-graphics, Scrabble-like restrictions on usable characters, fictional languages, logic puzzles and so on. - --Storm] Regular Ordinances of the Fantasy Rule (FR) Committee 1. Ordinances. There shall be two types of ordinances: regular ordinances and fantasy rules. Fantasy rules shall have no effect on play except as provided for in the regular ordinances. 2. Membership. Any person may become a member of this committee by posting in the committee forum a statement of intent to join. A member may resign from the committee at any time. 3. Starting a Round and posting Rules. Whenever a round of play ends, a new round should begin as soon as possible thereafter. The (new) Judge shall determine the exact time of the start of the round, and e may also suggest a theme for the round and nominate a member to post the first fantasy rule. All members are eligible as if they had posted a valid fantasy rule at the start of the round. Only those persons eligible to play may post fantasy rules. The Judge is not eligible. 4. Eligibility to play. Each valid fantasy rule makes its author eligible to play. This eligibility period lasts for seven (7) days from the time of the rule's posting minus one (1) day for each invalid fantasy rule posted by the same person after the valid fantasy rule. 5. End of Game. If at any time after the seventh day of a round, there is only one person eligible to play, then (a) all current fantasy rules are repealed (b) the round ends (c) the sole remaining player is declared winner of the just ended round and becomes Judge. 6. Judge. The Judge is responsible for interpreting the ordinances and determining the validity of fantasy rules. If a fantasy rule is inconsistent with itself, previously posted valid fantasy rules, or the regular ordinances, then the Judge shall declare that rule invalid. 6b. Resignation. The Judge may resign if e appoints a successor who agrees to serve as Judge until the end of the round. [The new Judge becomes ineligible to play upon the old Judge's resignation.] 7. Style Points. For each fantasy rule posted, the Judge shall award X points, where -3<=X<=3. The Judge may use any criteria e sees fit for such awards. At the end of a Round the Player who has collected the most Style Points will be known and addressed as the Wizard in the next Round. 8. Restrictions on Judge's Power. The decision (or lack thereof) of the Judge may be changed if a proposal is made to do so and that proposal receives a two-thirds affirmative vote of the members voting on that proposal within three (3) days after the posting of that proposal. If the validity of a fantasy rule is not officially questioned (either by proposal or Judgement) within three (3) days after its posting, that rule shall be considered valid until the end of the round. 9. Amendment. The regular ordinances may be amended if a proposal is posted to do so and said proposal receives a two-thirds (2/3) affirmative vote of the members voting on that proposal within seven (7) days after the posting of that proposal. Overrule. The regular ordinances may be overruled for a single round if a proposal is posted to do so and said proposal receives a two-thirds (2/3) affirmative vote of the members voting on that proposal within three (3) days after the posting of that proposal. 10. Where to Do Things. All actions under these rules must be accomplished by a public posting in the official committee forum. The Judge may determine the location and nature of the official committee forum. [As of now, "Public posting" is posting to the mailing list frc@nvg.unit.no .] ------------------------------ From: csg419@wing.rug.nl Date: Mon, 22 May 95 12:59:03 METDST Subject: PA6 - vote I vote FOR PA6. Andre ------------------------------ From: Susan Devine Date: Mon, 22 May 1995 08:25:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: PA6 - comment and vote Although I like the concept of PA6, I would like it better if the wording were: "... may not vote on any Proposals which would affect the round currently in play." Granted, most proposals will affect the round in play, but some are of such a general nature that allowing new Members to vote should not disrupt anything. As it is currently worded, I vote AGAINST. Dave Honsinger ------------------------------ From: selengut@MIT.EDU Date: Mon, 22 May 1995 10:01:31 EDT Subject: First rule of round 36 So, how do I start a round whose theme I have publicly denounced (and still avoid getting -3 SP's)? By interpreting it in a way that the Judge never expected, of course! >>>Start Rule 36:1<<< All future fantasy rules in round 36 will concern themselves in some fashion with one specific type of "alternative arithmetic", namely: "Moral Arithmetic and the Causal Calculus" which of course, is the mathematical field concerning itself with the quantitation and enumeration of the laws of human behavior and the consequences of moral and ethical choices. >>>End Rule 36:1<<< Have fun, everyone! - -The Wizard ------------------------------ From: Stephen Turner Date: Mon, 22 May 95 18:13:08 BST Subject: Judgement 36:1 Rule 36:1 (The Wizard) Mo-22-May-95 14:01 VALID (-1.5 SP) >>>>> All future fantasy rules in round 36 will concern themselves in some fashion with one specific type of "alternative arithmetic", namely: "Moral Arithmetic and the Causal Calculus" which of course, is the mathematical field concerning itself with the quantitation and enumeration of the laws of human behavior and the consequences of moral and ethical choices. >>>>> Judgement: No problem. Style points: Low style points for (i) trying to sabotage the theme; (ii) using the word 'quantitation' which doesn't exist; (iii) not describing any moral arithmetic or causal calculus yourself. Only -1.5 because of bravado and for thinking up something which actually sounds quite interesting! However, I hope later posters will not forget that the word 'arithmetic' is in the theme. - -- Stephen R. E. Turner Stochastic Networks Group, Statistical Laboratory, University of Cambridge e-mail: sret1@cam.ac.uk WWW: http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/~sret1/home.html "10 or 11 degrees C in the south: that's double figures" (ITV Weathercaster) ------------------------------ From: selengut@MIT.EDU Date: Mon, 22 May 1995 14:55:36 EDT Subject: Re: Judgement 36:1 Judge, I have no argument with point 3 of your explanation of the style points award for 36:1, however, 1) I have not "sabotaged" the theme. "Moral arithmetic" is as alternative an arithmetic as you will ever find. It was just not what you were looking for. 2) From Webster's: quantitate vt -tated; -tating [back-formation fr. quantitative] 1: to measure or estimate the quantity of; esp.: to measure or determine precisely 2: to express in quantitative terms --- quantitation n. A word I have heard used frequently in science (especially analytical chemistry) and seen printed in respected scientific journals. Is it too much to expect style point reparations included in my next judgement? -The Wizard ------------------------------ From: Don Blaheta Date: Mon, 22 May 1995 17:17:28 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: Judgement 36:1 Our Most Esteemed Wizard and Round Theme Saboteur sez: > Judge, > > I have no argument with point 3 of your explanation of the style points > award for 36:1, however, > > 1) I have not "sabotaged" the theme. "Moral arithmetic" is as alternative > an arithmetic as you will ever find. It was just not what you were looking > for. He said what he wanted as the theme; his shortened form of the theme, "Alternative Arithmetic", did not accurately describe the theme, but is much shorter than "Other forms of Arithmetic which have different Rules". > 2) From Webster's: > quantitate vt -tated; -tating [back-formation fr. quantitative] > 1: to measure or estimate the quantity of; esp.: to measure or determine > precisely 2: to express in quantitative terms --- quantitation n. I don't believe you. That sure isn't in *my* Webster's (what ver. are you using?)... and the word you are looking for is "quantify", the noun form of which is "quantification". (And to think, you can't even claim English as a foreign language for an excuse! :) > A word I have heard used frequently in science (especially > analytical chemistry) and seen printed in respected scientific journals. ???!!! That is very surprising, although I've learned to expect this sort of thing from chemists. ( ;) > Is it too much to expect style point reparations included in my next judgement? > > -The Wizard Vanyel - -=-=-=-Don Blaheta-=-=-=-blahedo@quincy.edu-=-=-=-dblaheta@aol.com-=-=-=- Entropy isn't what it used to be. ------------------------------ From: Gareth McCaughan Date: Tue, 23 May 95 0:37:11 BST Subject: Proposed 36:2 The Vr'hai tribe (who live on the island of Vr'aal in the Pacific Ocean) have a particularly interesting system of ethics, which might repay close study. The most remarkable feature of the Vr'hai system is its extreme formality: the Book of Laws (whose Vr'hai name is impossible to transcribe sensibly using only ASCII characters, and also almost impossible to pronounce unless one has a voicebox and mouth trained by years of speaking the Vr'hai language) lays down, in mind-numbing detail, exactly how any moral decision is to be made. The first stage in the process is known as the Enumeration (in Vr'hai, "Kaf-Lakkhar"), and works as follows: 1. You must enumerate with care all the different courses of action which you are considering. 2. For each pair of possible courses of action, you must enumerate each *critical difference* ("Lar'gachi") between them. There are many different critical differences, and they are all listed in Part II of the Book of Laws. 3. For each pair of courses of action, and each critical difference between them, you must enumerate all the *relevant consequences* (Vr'hai untranscribable) using the procedure described in Part III of the Book of Laws. The Vr'hai are a very intelligent race, and many of them really can hold all this information (including the enormous lists of critical differences and the methods for working out relevant consequences) in their heads at once. Far the hardest aspect of this is the procedure described in Part III, which requires a prodigious memory and considerable mental dexterity. It's late at night (my time), and I need to go home, so I haven't time to describe the Vr'hai tribe's fascinating theory of critical differences and relevant consequences. The next valid fantasy rule will give a detailed account of one of these (though, for reasons of space, it will surely not be able to list all of the critical differences or relevant consequences; curious readers are urged to consult the Book of Laws itself). However, I shall give just one sample critical difference, as described in the Book of Laws. I should explain that "First Course" and "Second Course" refer to the two courses of action being compared, and that "Main Course" refers to any one of the possible courses of action, considered by the person making the decision as the most likely or most preferred. If when the Courses are compared it be found that the First Course requires the speaking of more words than the Main Course, but the same hold not for the Second Course, this shall be deemed a Critical Difference of type 3.2a.5(i). If this relation hold with the First and Second Courses exchanged, this shall be deemed a Critical Difference of type 3.2a.5(ii). In either of these cases the Weighting shall be the difference in the number of words required to be spoken by the First Course (in the former case) or the Second (in the latter) and the number of words required to be spoken by the Main Course. (I am afraid the Vr'hai consider the Book of Laws to be the high point of their literature. Sadly, they are right.) The remaining stages, which I also have no time to describe, are called "Evaluation", "Differentiation" and "Integration". I shall content myself with mentioning that the latter two do not refer to the differential and integral calculus of Newton and Leibniz. - -- Gareth McCaughan Dept. of Pure Mathematics & Mathematical Statistics, gjm11@pmms.cam.ac.uk Cambridge University, England. [Research student] ------------------------------ End of frc-digest V1 #199 *************************