From: owner-frc-digest To: frc-digest@nvg.unit.no Subject: frc-digest V1 #217 Reply-To: frc Errors-To: owner-frc-digest Precedence: bulk frc-digest Tuesday, 13 June 1995 Volume 01 : Number 217 Another Rule 38:A - FOR Judgements to 38:10 38:11 38:11 Re: Judgements to 38:10 (fwd) Re: Judgements to 38:10 (fwd) Judgements 38:11,12 To: frc@nvg.unit.no (Fantasy Rules Committee) 38:13 Judgements 38:13,14 38: [none] [none] Judgements 38:15,16 & summary ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don Blaheta Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 22:43:27 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Another Rule In the future, Rules posted before the end of the vote on Proposal 38:A is Invalid unless it contains the statement "I Vote FOR 38:A." Rules posted after this time must contain a vote on a Proposal. ------------------------------ From: dug@pobox.com (Douglas R. Steen) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 20:46:31 -0700 Subject: 38:A - FOR Sounds fun to me! -Dug - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Douglas R. Steen "Internet for Teachers, by Teachers" Seattle, WA ** coming this fall ** http://www.halcyon.com/ResPress/teacher.htm - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: Stephen Turner Date: Tue, 13 Jun 95 9:37:43 BST Subject: Judgements to 38:10 Here are judgements 38:7-10; also revised style point comments on 38:6. FRC round 38 - ------------ Start of round: Mo-12-Jun-95 07:00 (all times GMT). Theme: Paradoxes Wizard: Ronald Judge: Stephen Rules judged: 10 (4 valid, 0 conditionally valid, 5 invalid, 1 unsuccessful) Total style points awarded on rules: 6.5 (+0.650 per rule) Bonus style points awarded: 3.5 Summary of eligibilities and style points: Player (rules) Eligible until Style points - -------------- ------------------ ------------ Vanyel (1, 0, 0, 0) Tu-20-Jun-95 03:43 2 Storm (1, 0, 0, 0) Mo-19-Jun-95 17:16 1.5 Peter (1, 0, 0, 0) Mo-19-Jun-95 16:33 3.5 Stein (1, 0, 1, 0) Mo-19-Jun-95 10:59 1 Others (0, 0, 0, 0) Mo-19-Jun-95 07:00 0 Dug (0, 0, 0, 1) Mo-19-Jun-95 07:00 -2 The Wizard (1, 0, 1, 0) Su-18-Jun-95 07:45 2.5 Sagitta (0, 0, 1, 0) Su-18-Jun-95 07:00 1 Dave (0, 0, 1, 0) Su-18-Jun-95 07:00 0.5 ========== Bonus style points: - ------------------- 1 to Dave for Monty Python knowledge. 2 to the Wizard for 38:A. 0.5 to Peter for knowing about Monty Python too. Votes: - ------ 38:A (The Wizard) Vote ends Th-15-Jun-95 07:45 >>>>> During this round regular Ordinance 5 shall read: "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 last player who became ineligible to post a Rule, but who's last posted Rule was valid, is declared winner of the just ended round and becomes Judge." >>>>> For 4: The Wizard, Stephen, Stein, Storm Aga 2: Oerjan, Peter ===== Rule 38:6 (Dave) Mo-12-Jun-95 16:22 INVALID (-0.5 SP) [...] Style points: - -1, because I don't think this does much more than 38:1. You redeemed 0.5 by being brief though. (At least, it's over my 5 line limit, but that's not your fault!) ===== Rule 38:7 (Storm) Mo-12-Jun-95 17:16 VALID (+1.5 SP) ***** I vote FOR 38:A, with fond memories of a Nomic World round with a similar rule.... Storm mkkuhner@genetics.washington.edu ***** Judgement: No problem, assuming she DOES vote for 38:A; so I'd better count her vote. Style points: Definitely 1SP for being (AFAIK) the first player ever to enter an FRC round entirely unintentionally, and 0.5 for keeping it under 5 lines even with the signature! (Yes, signatures are part of the length if they are part of the rule). ===== Rule 38:8 (The Wizard) Mo-12-Jun-95 19:03 INVALID (-1 SP) ***** Dave writes: >Rule 38:4 According to my count this is already the fifth rule. Bill's secret integer Rule was the fourth, although he called it 38:3. Ronald ***** Judgement: All true. It was the sixth in my mailbox, but I'm prepared to believe your count made it the fifth. However, your rule's invalid because (i) 38:7 is valid, and by 38:1...; (ii) you called yourself 'Ronald'. Style points: No adjustment for length as you probably didn't know you were submitting a rule! However, -1 for getting your name wrong. I've always thought players should respect the R.O.s even outside rules (yes, even if you don't like that R.O.) and now I have a chance to reflect that in style points. ===== Rule 38:9 (Vanyel) Tu-13-Jun-95 03:43 INVALID (2 SP) ***** In the future, Rules posted before the end of the vote on Proposal 38:A is Invalid unless it contains the statement "I Vote FOR 38:A." Rules posted after this time must contain a vote on a Proposal. ***** Judgement: Would have been conditionally valid, but is invalid by 38:1 because 38:10 is unsuccessful, not invalid. Got that? Style points: I think Vanyel is correct to exploit the relationship between rules and other postings that 38:5 has created, and to try and bring proposals in as part of the game again. I only give 1.5 points, because I'm worried it could get a bit cumbersome, people voting on proposals several times, people creating no-hope proposals for no reason other than to get a rule in. Plus 0.5 for brevity, of course. ===== Rule 38:10 (Dug) Tu-13-Jun-95 03:46 UNSUCCESSFUL (-2 SP) ***** *Subject: 38:A - FOR Sounds fun to me! -Dug - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Douglas R. Steen "Internet for Teachers, by Teachers" Seattle, WA ** coming this fall ** http://www.halcyon.com/ResPress/teacher.htm - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Comment: Note that I've included the subject because it was obviously part of the message. Usually I won't. Judgement: Would have been valid except for 38:9 just beating it into my mailbox by 1'19". So it's unsuccessful. Style points: Appears not to have read 38:5, or at least not my judgement on it. Not phrased as a rule, and is too long. Another comment: If votes appear in fantasy rules, I shall only count them if that rule is valid. (Other rules don't exist, or don't exist yet if they're conditionally valid). Don't worry, however, there may be ways to vote that don't involve submitting a fantasy rule; you've got nearly 2 days to find them. ===== - -- 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: Susan Devine Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 09:10:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: 38:11 If this rule is VALID, all future rules are INVALID. If this rule is INVALID, all future rules must be VALID. Dave Honsinger ------------------------------ From: Andre Engels Date: Tue, 13 Jun 95 15:17:19 METDST Subject: 38:11 If a Rule leads to a Paradox, by being neither valid, nor invalid, nor anything else which might be judged, the Judge looks at which Rules are, in his opinion, the cause of the Paradox. The Rule itself is only a cause if it actively helps creating the situation that makes it lead to a Paradox. Then he looks at the last of these Rules, called the 'last cause', and the paradoxical Rule is judged as such: The Rule is declared 'INVALID'. If the last cause is by another Player than the Player who posted the Rule leading to the Paradox, all (both past and future) Rules after that one are declared 'INVALID'. Andre ------------------------------ From: Stephen Turner Date: Tue, 13 Jun 95 14:57:42 BST Subject: Re: Judgements to 38:10 (fwd) Dave wrote to me: - -> - -> By the way, I am a bit hazy on the concept of an "unsuccessful" rule. - -> Can you explain it to me? - -> Sure. It applies if rule n+1 arrives just after rule n, so that it was posted before the player could have seen rule n. In those circumstances, if rule n+1 is invalid purely because of rule n; i.e. it is invalid and it would have been valid if rule n hadn't existed; then it is ruled UNSUCCESSFUL, and the eligibility of its poster remain unchanged. I hope that's clear. - -- 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: Tue, 13 Jun 95 15:06:40 BST Subject: Re: Judgements to 38:10 (fwd) Vanyel wrote to me: - -> - -> First of all, you need to update your summary, because it seems you've - -> given me credit for a valid proposal, though it is invalid. I can't - -> really argue with your judgment, much, since 38:1 forces you... - -> Yes, thanks for that. I've changed it and it should be correct in future. I was expecting it to be valid, that was the thing... - -> - -> > Comment: - -> > Note that I've included the subject because it was obviously part of - -> > the message. Usually I won't. - -> - -> But it isn't part of the *message*. So... why include it? - -> Well, I don't think "message" is clear. I would say it WAS part of the message, just not part of the body of the mail. - -> > If votes appear in fantasy rules, I shall only count them if that rule - -> > is valid. (Other rules don't exist, or don't exist yet if they're - -> > conditionally valid). - -> - -> Welll.... the message is *still* to the list, and just because the - -> *rule* doesn't exist doesn't mean that the *message* doesn't exist. - -> What do others think about this? It's a moot point, and I went the way I did because it seems more fun that way, but I'm prepared to change my mind if popular opinion is against me on this. I repeat, however, that there are ways round it anyway. - -> Let me specifically call attention to the fact that this message is - -> *NOT* to the list server :) and wonder out loud that the Most Esteemed - -> Judge is, er, posting the judgements to the listserver, which raises odd - -> but interesting, er, "paradoxes"... Could get recursive, you mean. However, "The Judge is not eligible". - -- 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: Tue, 13 Jun 95 15:33:41 BST Subject: Judgements 38:11,12 FRC round 38 - ------------ Start of round: Mo-12-Jun-95 07:00 (all times GMT). Theme: Paradoxes Wizard: Ronald Judge: Stephen Rules judged: 12 (4 valid, 0 conditionally valid, 6 invalid, 2 unsuccessful) Total style points awarded on rules: 3 (+0.250 per rule) Bonus style points awarded: 3.5 Summary of eligibilities and style points: Player (rules) Eligible until Style points - -------------- ------------------ ------------ Storm (1, 0, 0, 0) Mo-19-Jun-95 17:16 1.5 Peter (1, 0, 0, 0) Mo-19-Jun-95 16:33 3.5 Stein (1, 0, 1, 0) Mo-19-Jun-95 10:59 1 Others (0, 0, 0, 0) Mo-19-Jun-95 07:00 0 Dug (0, 0, 0, 1) Mo-19-Jun-95 07:00 -2 The Wizard (1, 0, 1, 0) Su-18-Jun-95 07:45 2.5 Vanyel (0, 0, 1, 0) Su-18-Jun-95 07:00 2 Sagitta (0, 0, 1, 0) Su-18-Jun-95 07:00 1 Dave (0, 0, 1, 1) Su-18-Jun-95 07:00 -0.5 Andre (0, 0, 1, 0) Su-18-Jun-95 07:00 -2.5 ========== Bonus style points: - ------------------- 1 to Dave for Monty Python knowledge. 2 to the Wizard for 38:A. 0.5 to Peter for knowing about Monty Python too. Votes: - ------ 38:A (The Wizard) Vote ends Th-15-Jun-95 07:45 >>>>> During this round regular Ordinance 5 shall read: "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 last player who became ineligible to post a Rule, but who's last posted Rule was valid, is declared winner of the just ended round and becomes Judge." >>>>> For 4: The Wizard, Stephen, Stein, Storm Aga 2: Oerjan, Peter ========== Rule 38:11 (Andre) Tu-13-Jun-95 13:17 INVALID (-2.5 SP) ***** If a Rule leads to a Paradox, by being neither valid, nor invalid, nor anything else which might be judged, the Judge looks at which Rules are, in his opinion, the cause of the Paradox. The Rule itself is only a cause if it actively helps creating the situation that makes it lead to a Paradox. Then he looks at the last of these Rules, called the 'last cause', and the paradoxical Rule is judged as such: The Rule is declared 'INVALID'. If the last cause is by another Player than the Player who posted the Rule leading to the Paradox, all (both past and future) Rules after that one are declared 'INVALID'. Andre ***** Judgement: Well, I give it the benefit of the doubt, because I don't think the situation can arise. If a rule leads to such a paradox, it is already invalid. However, this rule is INVALID because 38:12 is unsuccessful; see below. Style points: Several things wrong with this. It's very unclear what it all means. The last paragraph is very suspect because it might suggest invalidating rules that have already timed out. I give it -2 for those things, and -0.5 for lack of brevity. ===== Rule 38:12 (Dave) Tu-13-Jun-95 13:10 UNSUCCESSFUL (-1 SP) ***** If this rule is VALID, all future rules are INVALID. If this rule is INVALID, all future rules must be VALID. Dave Honsinger ***** Judgement: Would have been valid, but for the fact that it arrived after 38:11; so another invalid/unsuccessful pair. (A gap of 1'51" this time!) Style points: Vanyel is correct that it doesn't matter what would happen if this rule were invalid, so SPs taken off for that. Also, if I had ruled it valid, it would have been rather a boring way to try and win, akin to saying 'this is the last valid rule'. It would have been harder to overrule because 38:3 would have had to have been overruled too, but even so. I give it -1.5, +0.5 for brevity. - -- 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: Don Blaheta Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 09:40:32 -0500 (CDT) Subject: To: frc@nvg.unit.no (Fantasy Rules Committee) Prior rules have specified how a rule is considered and judged; future rules shall specify how a rule is written. They must make requirements which prior valid rules do not follow. ------------------------------ From: Bill Adlam Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 16:28:40 +0100 (BST) Subject: 38:13 >>>> No future rule will be valid if the Judge feels it is more restrictive than this one. Sagitta (who votes FOR 38:A) ------------------------------ From: Stephen Turner Date: Tue, 13 Jun 95 17:03:40 BST Subject: Judgements 38:13,14 FRC round 38 - ------------ Start of round: Mo-12-Jun-95 07:00 (all times GMT). Theme: Paradoxes Wizard: Ronald Judge: Stephen Rules judged: 14 (5 valid, 0 conditionally valid, 7 invalid, 2 unsuccessful) Total style points awarded on rules: 3.5 (+0.250 per rule) Bonus style points awarded: 3.5 Summary of eligibilities and style points: Player (rules) Eligible until Style points - -------------- ------------------ ------------ Vanyel (1, 0, 1, 0) Tu-20-Jun-95 14:40 1.5 Storm (1, 0, 0, 0) Mo-19-Jun-95 17:16 1.5 Peter (1, 0, 0, 0) Mo-19-Jun-95 16:33 3.5 Stein (1, 0, 1, 0) Mo-19-Jun-95 10:59 1 Others (0, 0, 0, 0) Mo-19-Jun-95 07:00 0 Dug (0, 0, 0, 1) Mo-19-Jun-95 07:00 -2 The Wizard (1, 0, 1, 0) Su-18-Jun-95 07:45 2.5 Sagitta (0, 0, 2, 0) Sa-17-Jun-95 07:00 2 Dave (0, 0, 1, 1) Su-18-Jun-95 07:00 -0.5 Andre (0, 0, 1, 0) Su-18-Jun-95 07:00 -2.5 ========== Bonus style points: - ------------------- 1 to Dave for Monty Python knowledge. 2 to the Wizard for 38:A. 0.5 to Peter for knowing about Monty Python too. Votes: - ------ 38:A (The Wizard) Vote ends Th-15-Jun-95 07:45 >>>>> During this round regular Ordinance 5 shall read: "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 last player who became ineligible to post a Rule, but who's last posted Rule was valid, is declared winner of the just ended round and becomes Judge." >>>>> For 4: The Wizard, Stephen, Stein, Storm Aga 2: Oerjan, Peter ===== Rule 38:13 (Vanyel) Tu-13-Jun-95 14:40 VALID (-0.5 SP) ***** Prior rules have specified how a rule is considered and judged; future rules shall specify how a rule is written. They must make requirements which prior valid rules do not follow. ***** Judgement: Fine. Style points: I give this -1 because although it's a nice idea (the converse of 37:2, in a way) I think it's rather sloppily phrased; of which more in future if required. +0.5 for brevity. ===== Rule 38:14 (Sagitta) Tu-13-Jun-95 15:28 INVALID (+1 SP) ***** >>>> No future rule will be valid if the Judge feels it is more restrictive than this one. Sagitta (who votes FOR 38:A) ***** Judgement: I was about to rule this UNSUCCESSFUL (and 38:13 INVALID) but when I checked the timestamps I came to the conclusion that Sagitta should have got 38:13 by the time of posting 38:14, so I rule it INVALID (38:13 is valid, so this is invalid by 38:1). Style points: It's an interesting concept, but I think it's too subjective to be really interesting. 1 SP for the idea. I don't give the usual half-point for brevity because of all the blank lines at the bottom, but I won't subtract any points either. ===== - -- 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: Susan Devine Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 13:57:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: 38: Future rules must not contain the words on the next line: rule, rules, future, valid, next, invalid, not Dave Honsinger ------------------------------ From: Orjan Johansen Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 20:17:52 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: [none] Future Rules must break all previous Rules. ------------------------------ From: Orjan Johansen Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 20:35:57 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: [none] 38:17 Messages with prime numbers after this one contain nothing of validity. ------------------------------ From: Stephen Turner Date: Tue, 13 Jun 95 19:42:04 BST Subject: Judgements 38:15,16 & summary I wonder if we've got rules from an unprecedented number of players this round? Here is a complete summary, including judgements on the last two rules submitted. FRC round 38 - ------------ Start of round: Mo-12-Jun-95 07:00 (all times GMT). Theme: Paradoxes Wizard: Ronald Judge: Stephen Rules judged: 16 (6 valid, 0 conditionally valid, 8 invalid, 2 unsuccessful) Total style points awarded on rules: 5.1 (+0.319 per rule) Bonus style points awarded: 3.5 Summary of eligibilities and style points: Player (rules) Eligible until Style points - -------------- ------------------ ------------ Dave (1, 0, 1, 1) Tu-20-Jun-95 17:57 0 Vanyel (1, 0, 1, 0) Tu-20-Jun-95 14:40 1.5 Storm (1, 0, 0, 0) Mo-19-Jun-95 17:16 1.5 Peter (1, 0, 0, 0) Mo-19-Jun-95 16:33 3.5 Stein (1, 0, 1, 0) Mo-19-Jun-95 10:59 1 Others (0, 0, 0, 0) Mo-19-Jun-95 07:00 0 Dug (0, 0, 0, 1) Mo-19-Jun-95 07:00 -2 The Wizard (1, 0, 1, 0) Su-18-Jun-95 07:45 2.5 Oerjan (0, 0, 1, 0) Su-18-Jun-95 07:00 1.1 Andre (0, 0, 1, 0) Su-18-Jun-95 07:00 -2.5 Sagitta (0, 0, 2, 0) Sa-17-Jun-95 07:00 2 ========== Bonus style points: - ------------------- 1 to Dave for Monty Python knowledge. 2 to the Wizard for 38:A. 0.5 to Peter for knowing about Monty Python too. Votes: - ------ 38:A (The Wizard) Vote ends Th-15-Jun-95 07:45 >>>>> During this round regular Ordinance 5 shall read: "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 last player who became ineligible to post a Rule, but who's last posted Rule was valid, is declared winner of the just ended round and becomes Judge." >>>>> For 4: The Wizard, Stephen, Stein, Storm Aga 2: Oerjan, Peter ========== Rule 38:1 (The Wizard) Mo-12-Jun-95 07:45 VALID (+1.5 SP) >>>>> Any Rule is only valid, if its successor is invalid *and* is posted by another Player. >>>>> Judgement: This one scrapes through. The problem is in the last clause ("and is posted by another player"). I can see why it was added (so that a player can't post one rule and then another trivially invalid one in quick succession to make the first one valid) but think the remedy doesn't work very well. What if the Wizard decided in 3 days' time to post another rule, no-one else having had a go since? (Or in general, if a player decided to post another rule immediately after eir valid rule)? That would produce a contradiction whether the second rule were valid or invalid. We can only conclude that the player is not allowed to post at that time. However, this contradicts the R.O.s. ("Eligible to play" in R.O.4 can only mean "may post fantasy rules"). The Wizard suggested in a personal e-mail that I could temporarily judge rules "UNDECIDED", i.e. suspend judgement until the next rule came along, but I don't think it helps. After three days the rule would become valid by timeout, and the same problem arises. However, I think the following will work. I shall use a new judgement, "CONDITIONALLY VALID" which means that that rule will be valid if the next rule comes along within three days and is written by somebody else, but if the rule is timed out, or the next rule is by the same person, I shall be considered to have declared the rule invalid. The point is that a rule can never be valid until another rule has been posted, because that would make its author both able and unable to play, as described above. Note that a conditionally valid rule is NOT valid for the purpose of calculating eligibilities. Style points: A good rule, right on theme. I think "if the next rule (if any) posted by another player is invalid" would have worked better, and would have got more SPs, but I suppose I did ask for paradoxes! 1 point, plus 0.5 for brevity. ===== Rule 38:2 (Stein) Mo-12-Jun-95 09:03 INVALID (+0.5 SP) >>>>> Rule 38:1 is valid. Rule 38:1 is not valid. >>>>> Judgement: Trivially invalid. Style points: "That's not a paradox, that's just contradiction." (1 bonus SP for anyone who can name the Monty Python sketch I'm parodying). Presumably just written in response to 38:1, so I don't penalise it. 0.5 for brevity. ===== Rule 38:3 (Stein) Mo-12-Jun-95 10:59 VALID (+0.5 SP) >>>> All valid rules in round 38 (except of course 38:1) must be posted in less than 48 hours after the last valid, or conditionally valid, rule. >>>> Judgement: No problem. Style points: Should keep the game moving! I don't really see it as a paradox though. Glad we're keeping those rules short. ===== Rule 38:4 (Sagitta) Mo-12-Jun-95 15:28 INVALID (+1 SP) >>>>> The Judge shall choose a secret number (X), an integer between 3 and 31. All rules numbered higher than 38:X will be invalid. However, other committee members will not know the value of X until rule 38:X is judged. >>>> Judgement: I had to wait to judge this one to find out whether Sagitta had received 38:3 before posting this. He had, so this is invalid, and 38:3 is valid, by 38:1. Had he not received it, I would have had to judge it UNSUCCESSFUL, and change 38:3 to invalid by 38:1! Note my method of resolving conflicts between two rules. It would have been consistent to rule 38:3 invalid and this conditionally valid, but I shall give the earlier rule precedence as I consider it becomes valid as soon as the next rule is posted. Style points: A nice try to get a classic paradox working. I'm glad it didn't work as I would have had a headache trying to work out whether it was contradictory or whether I could have chosen an X. 0.5 for the rule and 0.5 for brevity. (NB My new scoring scheme seems to be having the desired effect so far!) ===== Rule 38:5 (Peter) Mo-12-Jun-95 16:33 VALID (+3 SP) >>>>> *ALL* messages posted to the FRC mailing list from eligible players shall be considered to be fantasy rule submissions and be judged accordingly. >>>>> Judgement: No problem. (Though see 38:6). Style points: I'm not sure whether this will stifle discussion, keep discussion short, or make enough invalid rules that 38:1 doesn't kill the game. Well, we shall see, but it certainly deserves maximum style points for sheer audacity! PS: Sorry Peter, you were just too late to win the Python competition, but I give you 0.5 consolation SPs as you hadn't seen that it had already been answered when you posted. ===== Rule 38:6 (Dave) Mo-12-Jun-95 16:22 INVALID (-0.5 SP) ***** Rule 38:4 >>>>>> No future rule shall be VALID unless, at the time of its posting, the rule immediately preceding it has been judged INVALID. For the purposes of this rule, CONDITIONALY VALID rules shall be deemed VALID. >>>>>> Dave Honsinger ***** Judgement: I nearly ruled this one unsuccessful (it was posted before 38:5, assuming both players' clocks are right, but arrived after) and made 38:5 thus invalid by 38:1; but I didn't for the following reason. I had already ruled 38:5 conditionally valid. I said that conditionally valid rules would become valid as soon as the next rule was posted. So then the WHOLE of Dave's message is part of 38:6, but as he's numbered it wrongly, it's invalid. (If he had numbered it correctly, it would still have been unsuccessful, and 38:5 invalid. Even if he had put 38:5 it would have been unsuccessful because that would have been the right numbering before 38:5 arrived). Again, the other interpretation would have been consistent, but I choose to rule in favour of the earlier rule, ceteris paribus. Style points: - -1, because I don't think this does much more than 38:1. You redeemed 0.5 by being brief though. (At least, it's over my 5 line limit, but that's not your fault!) ===== Rule 38:7 (Storm) Mo-12-Jun-95 17:16 VALID (+1.5 SP) ***** I vote FOR 38:A, with fond memories of a Nomic World round with a similar rule.... Storm mkkuhner@genetics.washington.edu ***** Judgement: No problem, assuming she DOES vote for 38:A; so I'd better count her vote. Style points: Definitely 1SP for being (AFAIK) the first player ever to enter an frc round entirely unintentionally, and 0.5 for keeping it under 5 lines even with the signature! (Yes, signatures are part of the length if they are part of the rule). ===== Rule 38:8 (The Wizard) Mo-12-Jun-95 19:03 INVALID (-1 SP) ***** Dave writes: >Rule 38:4 According to my count this is already the fifth rule. Bill's secret integer Rule was the fourth, although he called it 38:3. Ronald ***** Judgement: All true. It was the sixth in my mailbox, but I'm prepared to believe your count made it the fifth. However, your rule's invalid because (i) 38:7 is valid, and by 38:1...; (ii) you called yourself 'Ronald'. Style points: No adjustment for length as you probably didn't know you were submitting a rule! However, -1 for getting your name wrong. I've always thought players should respect the R.O.s even outside rules (yes, even if you don't like that R.O.) and now I have a chance to reflect that in style points. ===== Rule 38:9 (Vanyel) Tu-13-Jun-95 03:43 INVALID (2 SP) ***** In the future, Rules posted before the end of the vote on Proposal 38:A is Invalid unless it contains the statement "I Vote FOR 38:A." Rules posted after this time must contain a vote on a Proposal. ***** Judgement: Would have been conditionally valid, but is invalid by 38:1 because 38:10 is unsuccessful, not invalid. Got that? Style points: I think Vanyel is correct to exploit the relationship between rules and other postings that 38:5 has created, and to try and bring proposals in as part of the game again. I only give 1.5 points, because I'm worried it could get a bit cumbersome, people voting on proposals several times, people creating no-hope proposals for no reason other than to get a rule in. Plus 0.5 for brevity, of course. ===== Rule 38:10 (Dug) Tu-13-Jun-95 03:46 UNSUCCESSFUL (-2 SP) ***** *Subject: 38:A - FOR Sounds fun to me! -Dug - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Douglas R. Steen "Internet for Teachers, by Teachers" Seattle, WA ** coming this fall ** http://www.halcyon.com/ResPress/teacher.htm - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Comment: Note that I've included the subject because it was obviously part of the message. Usually I won't. Judgement: Would have been valid except for 38:9 just beating it into my mailbox by 1'19". So it's unsuccessful. Style points: Appears not to have read 38:5, or at least not my judgement on it. Not phrased as a rule, and is too long. Another comment: If votes appear in fantasy rules, I shall only count them if that rule is valid. (Other rules don't exist, or don't exist yet if they're conditionally valid). Don't worry, however, there may be ways to vote that don't involve submitting a fantasy rule; you've got nearly 2 days to find them. ===== Rule 38:11 (Andre) Tu-13-Jun-95 13:17 INVALID (-2.5 SP) ***** If a Rule leads to a Paradox, by being neither valid, nor invalid, nor anything else which might be judged, the Judge looks at which Rules are, in his opinion, the cause of the Paradox. The Rule itself is only a cause if it actively helps creating the situation that makes it lead to a Paradox. Then he looks at the last of these Rules, called the 'last cause', and the paradoxical Rule is judged as such: The Rule is declared 'INVALID'. If the last cause is by another Player than the Player who posted the Rule leading to the Paradox, all (both past and future) Rules after that one are declared 'INVALID'. Andre ***** Judgement: Well, I give it the benefit of the doubt, because I don't think the situation can arise. If a rule leads to such a paradox, it is already invalid. However, this rule is INVALID because 38:12 is unsuccessful; see below. Style points: Several things wrong with this. It's very unclear what it all means. The last paragraph is very suspect because it might suggest invalidating rules that have already timed out. I give it -2 for those things, and -0.5 for lack of brevity. ===== Rule 38:12 (Dave) Tu-13-Jun-95 13:10 UNSUCCESSFUL (-1 SP) ***** If this rule is VALID, all future rules are INVALID. If this rule is INVALID, all future rules must be VALID. Dave Honsinger ***** Judgement: Would have been valid, but for the fact that it arrived after 38:11; so another invalid/unsuccessful pair. (A gap of 1'51" this time!) Style points: Vanyel is correct that it doesn't matter what would happen if this rule were invalid, so SPs taken off for that. Also, if I had ruled it valid, it would have been rather a boring way to try and win, akin to saying 'this is the last valid rule'. It would have been harder to overrule because 38:3 would have had to have been overruled too, but even so. I give it -1.5, +0.5 for brevity. ===== Rule 38:13 (Vanyel) Tu-13-Jun-95 14:40 VALID (-0.5 SP) ***** Prior rules have specified how a rule is considered and judged; future rules shall specify how a rule is written. They must make requirements which prior valid rules do not follow. ***** Judgement: Fine. Style points: I give this -1 because although it's a nice idea (the converse of 37:2, in a way) I think it's rather sloppily phrased; of which more in future if required. +0.5 for brevity. ===== Rule 38:14 (Sagitta) Tu-13-Jun-95 15:28 INVALID (+1 SP) ***** >>>> No future rule will be valid if the Judge feels it is more restrictive than this one. Sagitta (who votes FOR 38:A) ***** Judgement: I was about to rule this UNSUCCESSFUL (and 38:13 INVALID) but when I checked the timestamps I came to the conclusion that Sagitta should have got 38:13 by the time of posting 38:14, so I rule it INVALID (38:13 is valid, so this is invalid by 38:1). Style points: It's an interesting concept, but I think it's too subjective to be really interesting. 1 SP for the idea. I don't give the usual half-point for brevity because of all the blank lines at the bottom, but I won't subtract any points either. ===== Rule 38:15 (Dave) Tu-13-Jun-95 17:57 VALID (0.5 SP) ***** Future rules must not contain the words on the next line: rule, rules, future, valid, next, invalid, not Dave Honsinger ***** Judgement: No problem. Style points: Overkill; 'rule' and 'rules' would have done it. Also, synonyms shouldn't be too hard to find. Also, it's more stylish to obey your own rule (at least you could have obeyed it on the first line). Also, we're getting further and further away from the theme. Having said all that it's a reasonable idea, and might just catch some people out, and I think the positive and negative just about balance out. So just the usual 0.5.... ===== Rule 38:16 (Oerjan) Tu-13-Jun-95 18:17 INVALID (1.1 SP) ***** Future Rules must break all previous Rules. ***** Judgement: ...and thus become invalid one way or another. It's invalid because 38:15 is valid, but I'm not sure whether I would have allowed it anyway. Isn't it inconsistent to say rules have to break 38:5 & 38:7; what would that mean? Style points: Well, getting back to the paradoxes, but I think it's rather too unsubtle. 0.5 for effort/amusement, and 0.6 (!) for being extra brief. - -- 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) ------------------------------ End of frc-digest V1 #217 *************************