From: owner-frc-digest To: frc-digest@nvg.unit.no Subject: frc-digest V1 #273 Reply-To: frc Errors-To: owner-frc-digest Precedence: bulk frc-digest Tuesday, 15 August 1995 Volume 01 : Number 273 Re: 42:7 42:6 Adjudication Proposal 42:a Status Oops, True 42a Status Proposal 42b Status Re: Proposal 42b Status Re: Proposal 42b Status Re: Proposal 42b Status Re: Proposal 42b Status 42:7 Adjudication ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: dug@pobox.com (Douglas R. Steen) Date: Sun, 13 Aug 1995 11:40:21 -0700 Subject: Re: 42:7 At 12:54 AM 8/13/95 -0500, Don Blaheta wrote: >he just woke up, and got out of his meagre home, a shoebox in the middle >of the road. >However, in pursuing his daily service to the town of Baudsville (that >of keeping the road clean (by licking it clean, with his tongue)), he >"Oh well," thought Harold, "at least this life is better than it was >living in the septic tank." Luxury!! -Dug - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Douglas R. Steen "Internet for Teachers, by Teachers" Seattle, WA ** coming this fall ** http://www.halcyon.com/ResPress/teacher.htm - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: "Gregory J. Weidman 703-329-4331" Date: Mon, 14 Aug 1995 10:52:39 -0400 (EDT) Subject: 42:6 Adjudication Rule 42:6 Dug VALID 1.5 Points ...... === RULE 42:6 === Dr. didit was having lunch at the Bandwidth Cafe when she was summoned to the scene. She ran both of Baudsville's stoplights in her rush across town; even so, she was too late to save the dying Mrs. Huggins. The voice on the phone had described Mr. Wizard's new house, of course, but Dr. didit still hesitated before mounting the steps. One doesn't have to be a doctor to know that houses don't appear overnight, yet this one seemed to have done just that. "Of course," reflected the doctor, glancing around as she knocked quickly and then let herself in, "if any house were to appear magically, this one would be it." The man she met in the mirrored foyer had a pleasant face and a somewhat puzzled expression. He wasted little time on introductions. "Tom Wizard, doctor. Please come this way." "What happened?" "I can't say exactly," replied the bemused gentleman, "However, I can tell you one thing for certain: Belinda Huggins was murdered." All future rules shall pertain in some manner to the question of who killed Mrs. Huggins. ...... Validity Wow. Dug has managed to satisfy rules in a just-barely manner that is truly impressive. I'll allow it under 42:2, and it does indeed satisfy 42:4! Points: Good plot, good rule, it's going to make the rest of the round even more interesting. Nothing incongruous, and in addition to the mystery of who killed poor Belinda, we have the mystery of who exactly "Tom" of 42:4 is. I gather there's some questions which have been raised about 42:4, so if anyone has some thoughts they'd really like to get off their chest, please send them to me. Nice Job. ...... Status Judge: Greg Da Judge Wizard: Jeremy Dug 8/19/95, 0545 GMT 1.5 Morendil Ineligible 0.5 Peter 8/15/95, 1828 GMT 0.5 Ronald 8/15/95, 1040 GMT -1.0 Stein 8/15/95, 1003 GMT 1.5 Wizard 8/14/95, 1623 GMT 1.0 Others 8/14/95, 1330 GMT 0.0 ...... ------------------------------ From: "Gregory J. Weidman 703-329-4331" Date: Mon, 14 Aug 1995 10:55:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Proposal 42:a Status Proposal 42a: ...... I propose that the last sentence of RO7 be changed from 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. to At the end of a Round the Player who has collected the most Style Points will be the Wizard in the next Round. ...... Voting remains open until 2057 GMT on 15 Aug 95. Voting for the proposal: Peter Stein Garth Ronald Doug Storm Dug Dave Voting against the proposal: Stephen Greg FYI: 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. ------------------------------ From: "Gregory J. Weidman 703-329-4331" Date: Mon, 14 Aug 1995 10:57:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Oops, True 42a Status Proposal 42a: ...... I propose that the last sentence of RO7 be changed from 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. to At the end of a Round the Player who has collected the most Style Points will be the Wizard in the next Round. ...... Voting remains open until 2057 GMT on 15 Aug 95. Voting for the proposal: Peter Stein Garth Ronald Doug Storm Dug Dave Vanyel Bruce Voting against the proposal: Stephen Greg FYI: 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. ...... My apologies to Vanyel and Bruce, I had no intent to slight you. Here are your votes, duly registered. ------------------------------ From: "Gregory J. Weidman 703-329-4331" Date: Mon, 14 Aug 1995 11:04:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Proposal 42b Status === PROPOSAL 42:B === I propose that the following Reg. Ord. be added for the duration of Round 42: 7a. At the end of the round, a vote will decide the solution to the mystery. All Players will have one (1) day from the end of the round to accuse a fictional Baudsville character of the murder of Mrs. Huggins (and include a solution to the baffling mystery), and then two (2) days after that to vote on their favorite solutions. The winning solution(s) will be determined by a plurality of votes cast. The Player(s) who created the guilty character(s) will receive three (3) bonus style points for the purpose of determining the next round's Wizard. ...... Voting remains open until 19 August 1995, 0545 GMT. Voting for the proposal Dug Greg Voting against the proposal ...... Just a note: Somehow, this doesn't seem quite legal to me, but I can see what Dug is getting at, and it seems like a reasonable thing to do, so I figure, "What the heck." I guess if this passes the amendment process (2/3 in 7 days) then a proposal that said: "I propose that proposal 42b be considered a legal proposal" would also pass, so, hey, I can go for that. :) ------------------------------ From: Don Blaheta Date: Mon, 14 Aug 1995 10:18:49 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: Proposal 42b Status I vote for this as well. Vanyel - -=-=-=-Don Blaheta-=-=-=-blahedo@quincy.edu-=-=-=-dblaheta@aol.com-=-=-=- The [Ford Foundation] is a large body of money completely surrounded by people who want some. -- Dwight MacDonald ------------------------------ From: dug@pobox.com (Douglas R. Steen) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 1995 09:34:35 -0700 Subject: Re: Proposal 42b Status At 11:04 AM 8/14/95 -0400, Gregory J. Weidman 703-329-4331 wrote: >=== PROPOSAL 42:B === >...... >Just a note: Somehow, this doesn't seem quite legal to me, but >I can see what Dug is getting at, and it seems like a reasonable >thing to do, so I figure, "What the heck." I guess if this passes >the amendment process (2/3 in 7 days) then a proposal that said: >"I propose that proposal 42b be considered a legal proposal" would >also pass, so, hey, I can go for that. :) As to legality: if it passes, it's legal by definition, right? I mean, as soon as it passes, it IS the law. I can't think of a situation in which a reg ord proposal wouldn't be "legal" (unless, maybe, it wasn't posted by an FRC member). Of course, it could be inconsistent with other reg ords, making the round (or game) unfair, unplayable, or unfun. Although my proposal may skirt the edge of such issues (adding style points after the round is officially over, e.g.), I would hope that others see it as Greg does: What the heck, it should be amusing, so why not? On another point, the proposal is intended for this round only, which means it needs 2/3 of the affirmative vote in three (3) days, not seven (7). That means we have til Tuesday (2sday) for (4) you to vote. =) -Dug - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Douglas R. Steen "Internet for Teachers, by Teachers" Seattle, WA ** coming this fall ** http://www.halcyon.com/ResPress/teacher.htm - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: "Gregory J. Weidman 703-329-4331" Date: Mon, 14 Aug 1995 13:29:03 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Proposal 42b Status Dug says: >At 11:04 AM 8/14/95 -0400, Gregory J. Weidman 703-329-4331 wrote: >>=== PROPOSAL 42:B === > >>...... >>Just a note: Somehow, this doesn't seem quite legal to me, but >>I can see what Dug is getting at, and it seems like a reasonable >>thing to do, so I figure, "What the heck." I guess if this passes >>the amendment process (2/3 in 7 days) then a proposal that said: >>"I propose that proposal 42b be considered a legal proposal" would >>also pass, so, hey, I can go for that. :) > > As to legality: if it passes, it's legal by definition, right? I mean, as >soon as it passes, it IS the law. I can't think of a situation in which a >reg ord proposal wouldn't be "legal" (unless, maybe, it wasn't posted by an >FRC member). > Of course, it could be inconsistent with other reg ords, making the round >(or game) unfair, unplayable, or unfun. Although my proposal may skirt the >edge of such issues (adding style points after the round is officially over, >e.g.), I would hope that others see it as Greg does: What the heck, it >should be amusing, so why not? > On another point, the proposal is intended for this round only, which >means it needs 2/3 of the affirmative vote in three (3) days, not seven (7). >That means we have til Tuesday (2sday) for (4) you to vote. =) > > -Dug > >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - - > Douglas R. Steen "Internet for Teachers, by Teachers" > Seattle, WA ** coming this fall ** > http://www.halcyon.com/ResPress/teacher.htm >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - - Because the rule actually extends beyond the round by a slight bit, and because its consistancy with the other R.O.s is questionable, and because it hardly seems to match the normal meaning of an "Overrule" (it is, rather, an additional rule) I will leave the voting open for seven days, rather than three. Regards, Greg Da Judge ------------------------------ From: peter@wolfe.net (Peter Sarrett) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 1995 12:14:55 -0700 Subject: Re: Proposal 42b Status >Because the rule actually extends beyond the round by a slight bit, >and because its consistancy with the other R.O.s is questionable, >and because it hardly seems to match the normal meaning of an >"Overrule" (it is, rather, an additional rule) I will leave the >voting open for seven days, rather than three. Um, actually, it precisely matches the definition of an overrule-- it is a temporary change to the reg ords for a single round, as opposed to a permanent ammendment to them. The procedure for a temporary change is a 3 day voting period with a 2/3 majority needed. Overrules supercede the reg ords-- that's why they're "overrules"-- so consistency with other reg ords isn't an issue. If there's a conflict, the overrule wins. - Peter ============================================================================== Peter Sarrett peter@wolfe.net | "You don't stop playing games when Seattle, WA editor: The Game Report | you get old, you get old when you http://www.wolfe.net/~peter | stop playing games." - O.W. Holmes ============================================================================== ------------------------------ From: "Gregory J. Weidman 703-329-4331" Date: Mon, 14 Aug 1995 16:59:47 -0400 (EDT) Subject: 42:7 Adjudication I still haven't received 42:7. I can tell that it obviously was posted before the "others" deadline, but it hasn't come here. Please, would someone send me a copy of this rule, so that it can be adjudicated? Thank you very much. Regards, Greg Da Judge ------------------------------ End of frc-digest V1 #273 *************************