From: owner-frc-digest To: frc-digest@nvg.unit.no Subject: frc-digest V1 #332 Reply-To: frc Errors-To: owner-frc-digest Precedence: bulk frc-digest Friday, 26 April 1996 Volume 01 : Number 332 Re: On residue's rule Re: CFJ 869 mailproblems Re: On residue's rule Re: On residue's rule A workable 55:4 ? Re: A workable 55:4 ? Re: mailproblems How to loose stylepoints Question about 55:6 The proposal to Invalidate 55:5 Rule 55:7 Re: On residue's rule Re: How to loose stylepoints ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Residue@aol.com Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 00:05:10 -0400 Subject: Re: On residue's rule Ronald wrote: > The Judge is only restricted by the R.O.s, not by Rules. On the contrary--almost every rule further restricts a Judge with regard to how e must determine validity. Rules of the form "a rule must meet condition Q to be valid" are regularly accepted without question, even when condition Q has nothing whatsoever to do with the content of the rule being judged. Why is Rule 55:4 any different? > Residue's rule tries to impose an extra action on the Judge, > necessary to determine the validness of subsequent Rules. As I pointed out previously, so have the rules this round involving Web sites. If the objection is merely to the wording of Rule 55:4 ("The Judge shall roll a six-sided die..."), note that Judge Andre has chosen to follow the spirit of the rule rather than the letter (by substituting cards for dice). This is perfectly in keeping with my intent; I don't see how this rule is unduly restrictive. > Whether this is acceptable, is IMO up to the Judge. That _is_ the bottom line. I agree completely. As someone pointed out in the last round (and you know who you are), part of the fun of the game is adapting to the natures of different Judges. > In the "classics" Round I spent quite some time in the library, > looking in encyclopedia. Of course, this was not obligatory, only > highly recommandable in order to produce valid rules :-) > > In this Round it seems highly recommendable to consult the Web. > That for some Players this poses problems is not much of an issue. I'm not arguing that browsing the Web is prohibitively burdensome. My point is that it costs _something_, and therefore has an effect on play not provided for in the Regs, in clear violation of R.O. 1. If anyone disagrees, I'll be happy to forward my AOL bill for these "nonexistent" effects. ;) > However, I think [Residue's proposal] needs some rephrasing: for > the moment it is not clear to me what it is: it's not a proposal > to change a Judgment, nor a proposal to change an R.O. What it is is a rebuttal to Stein's too-literal (in my opinion) interpretation of the Regs. Of course, I don't seriously expect it to take effect, nor do I even particularly want it to. I'm only suggesting that if R.O. 1 is followed to the letter in invalidating Rule 55:4, then it should be followed to the letter across the board. In fact, if R.O. 1 is interpreted literally, I'd argue _any_ non-trivial rule would have to be rejected, since the only effects on play provided for by the Regs are extending eligibility and obligating The Judge to declare validity and award Style Points. Rules that restrict other rules, for example, are not explicitly provided for in the Regs. Should such rules, then, be summarily deemed invalid? I am opposed to overly literal interpretations of the Regs, but I am even more opposed to double standards. If R.O. 1 is going to be stiflingly restrictive, it should be equally so for everyone. The Web site rules have a demonstrable effect on the game not provided for in the Regs--I have proof of it. Given that, how can someone consistently vote FOR Stein's proposal and AGAINST mine? Bryan Bowe residue@aol.com ------------------------------ From: Orjan Johansen Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 06:20:26 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: Re: CFJ 869 On Wed, 24 Apr 1996, Jeff Caruso wrote: [about Andre Engels] > (His server is rejecting mail, at least from me. Maybe he'll see this > thread eventually...) Given the bounce messages, I doubt that he will see any of them unless you resend. FRC members are advised that all messages to the list have bounced from Judge Andre's account since (and including) Rule 55:6. I am keeping the bounces for later resending. Greetings, Oerjan. - -- "[There] is a special class for family members which also incidentally includes vegetables." - David Roberts about the Zulu language ------------------------------ From: Andre Engels Date: Thu, 25 Apr 96 11:51:26 METDST Subject: mailproblems Through an error, which has been corrected now, I have not received any mail during the last 23 hours. I miss my own judgement on 55:5, as well as any other message sent after the sending of 55:5, except for Stein's proposal to invalidate 55:4 and Stephen's reaction to that. Andre ------------------------------ From: Stephen Turner Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 11:49:25 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: On residue's rule Residue@aol.com wrote a superset of: - -> - -> Almost every rule further restricts a Judge with regard to - -> how e must determine validity. Why is Rule 55:4 any different? - -> - -> I'm not arguing that browsing the Web is prohibitively burdensome. My point - -> is that it costs _something_, and therefore has an effect on play not - -> provided for in the Regs, in clear violation of R.O. 1. - -> - -> In fact, if R.O. 1 is interpreted literally, I'd argue _any_ non-trivial rule - -> would have to be rejected, since the only effects on play provided for by the - -> Regs are extending eligibility and obligating The Judge to declare validity - -> and award Style Points. Rules that restrict other rules, for example, are not - -> explicitly provided for in the Regs. Should such rules, then, be summarily - -> deemed invalid? - -> - -> How can someone consistently vote FOR Stein's proposal and - -> AGAINST mine? - -> I thought at first you were just trying to make out a case in the hope of retaining your rule, but to my surprise you do actually seem to believe it. The cases seem to me to be entirely and utterly different. The ROs explicitly require the Judge to determine the validity of fantasy rules. Reading the Web pages is a means to that end. There is no requirement imposed on other members to read Web pages at all (although rules posted by members who have not done so are unlikely to be valid). There is not even an explicit requirement on the Judge to do so -- only an implicit one by virtue of the fact that he must fulfil R.O.6. Your rule, on the other hand, explicitly requires the Judge to carry out a different and new game action, namely rolling a die to determine something. The only game actions provided for in the ROs are posting and judging rules, and making and voting on proposals. And fantasy rules are explicitly prohibited from inventing any others. - -- 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 British Isles Backgammon Association Champion '95; British Open winner '96. ------------------------------ From: KUNNE@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR Date: Thu, 25 Apr 96 13:28:48 SET Subject: Re: On residue's rule Residue writes: >Ronald wrote: >> The Judge is only restricted by the R.O.s, not by Rules. > >On the contrary--almost every rule further restricts a Judge with regard to >how e must determine validity. I disagree and quote R.O. 6: 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. This means IMO, that the judge is not restricted by the Rules: e merely has to decide whether, in eir opinion, a rule is consistent with other rules. E is not obliged to obey the rules, like the players are. >Rules of the form "a rule must meet condition >Q to be valid" are regularly accepted without question, even when condition Q >has nothing whatsoever to do with the content of the rule being judged. Why >is Rule 55:4 any different? Because the validity of a Rule no longer depends on its consistency (as judged by the Judge), but on an external action, which action is imposed by a Rule on the Judge. In other words "A rule is valid only if submitted on Wednesday" would be valid (but rather styleless, as something like that has been done) >If the objection is merely to the wording of Rule 55:4 ("The Judge shall roll >a six-sided die..."), note that Judge Andre has chosen to follow the spirit >of the rule rather than the letter (by substituting cards for dice). This is >perfectly in keeping with my intent; I don't see how this rule is unduly >restrictive. This is, in fact another point I have problems with. The fact that Andre explicitly disobeys the Rule by using cards, shows that he is *not* restricted by the rules. (A Player using cards to obey a restriction that obliges him to use dice, would have produced an invalid rule!) But if the Judge is not restricted, why would he be only restricted partially? In other words, if it is permitted that Andre substitutes one action A for an other, then it is equally permitted that he substitutes A by a completely different action. However, the latter seems unacceptable. Hence, the substition of A by *any* other action is unpermissable. >> Whether this is acceptable, is IMO up to the Judge. >That _is_ the bottom line. I agree completely. As someone pointed out in the >last round (and you know who you are), part of the fun of the game is >adapting to the natures of different Judges. I think I said that myself. Therefore I found it amusing that Andre played the game, especially because the result was that Residue was trapped himself. However, the opinion of Stein that such an action (and therefore the Rule) contradicts the R.O. is defendable. >I'm not arguing that browsing the Web is prohibitively burdensome. My point >is that it costs _something_, and therefore has an effect on play not >provided for in the Regs, in clear violation of R.O. 1. If anyone disagrees, >I'll be happy to forward my AOL bill for these "nonexistent" effects. ;) That's besides the point: if one can't afford to play FRC optimally for lack of time, then that is though, but that's life. If you can not play FRC this particular Round because it costs to much money, then that's though too, but not very relevant for the game. (I refrain from making a blurb about "time is money", which would equal your problems to mine :-) >In fact, if R.O. 1 is interpreted literally, I'd argue _any_ non-trivial rule >would have to be rejected, since the only effects on play provided for by the >Regs are extending eligibility and obligating The Judge to declare validity >and award Style Points. Rules that restrict other rules, for example, are not >explicitly provided for in the Regs. Should such rules, then, be summarily >deemed invalid? Which interpretation would finish the game and therefore has to be invalid.... >I am opposed to overly literal interpretations of the Regs, but I am even >more opposed to double standards. If R.O. 1 is going to be stiflingly >restrictive, it should be equally so for everyone. The Web site rules have a >demonstrable effect on the game not provided for in the Regs--I have proof of >it. Given that, how can someone consistently vote FOR Stein's proposal and >AGAINST mine? Several arguments have already be given: apparently we have a difference of opinion on what is consistent and what is not. Greetings, Ronald ------------------------------ From: Stein.Kulseth@kjeller.fou.telenor.no Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 15:16:42 +0200 Subject: A workable 55:4 ? This is not a rule submission. This is merely an attempt to see if Residue's intended rule could have been worded so as not to clash with RO 1. The following would have been OK with me, I think: > Player's may get trapped in cyberspace. For each rule declared valid > The Judge may roll a six-sided die, and on a roll of 5 or 6 announce, > as part of the judgment commentary, that the rule's author is trapped. > If The Judge so does announce, then that player is considered trapped > (etc. etc. etc.) Are we splitting hairs here? Maybe, but that can be fun too... - -- Stein stein.kulseth@fou.telenor.no G=Stein;S=Kulseth;O=FOU;P=telenor;A=telemax;C=no; http://www.nta.no/brukere/stein ------------------------------ From: KUNNE@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR Date: Thu, 25 Apr 96 15:53:16 SET Subject: Re: A workable 55:4 ? Stein writes: > >This is not a rule submission. This is merely an attempt to see >if Residue's intended rule could have been worded so as not to clash >with RO 1. > >The following would have been OK with me, I think: > >> Player's may get trapped in cyberspace. For each rule declared valid >> The Judge may roll a six-sided die, and on a roll of 5 or 6 announce, >> as part of the judgment commentary, that the rule's author is trapped. >> If The Judge so does announce, then that player is considered trapped >> (etc. etc. etc.) > >Are we splitting hairs here? Maybe, but that can be fun too... It doesn't seem fair to me, that the judge *may* do something which arbitrarily influences the validity of future rules. Why not something independent of the Judge altogether? Like: if the "Dow Jones of the next working day drops more than 0.1% the Player is trapped", or something similar? (The whole matter reminds me of KoJen's cereals, but that's another story :-) Ronald ------------------------------ From: KUNNE@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR Date: Thu, 25 Apr 96 16:00:22 SET Subject: Re: mailproblems Andre writes: >Through an error, which has been corrected now, I have not received any >mail during the last 23 hours. > >I miss my own judgement on 55:5, as well as any other message sent after >the sending of 55:5, except for Stein's proposal to invalidate 55:4 and >Stephen's reaction to that. Could you please resend the judgment on 55:5 (and 55:6), as I it never arrived here? Ronald ------------------------------ From: Andre Engels Date: Thu, 25 Apr 96 16:05:29 METDST Subject: How to loose stylepoints Going through the archives I have made a top-20 of the most used ways to loose stylepoints. Of course the grouping in categories is subjective. 1. The rule is not restrictive enough, or the restrictions are too easy to cirucumvent. 2. The rule is too long 3. The rule does not stick to theme, or spoils it. 4. Reposting, resubmitting or copying a rule 5. The rule, or its restriction, is sloppily phrased (often causing #1). 6. Strange restrictions. 7. The rule, or its restriction, is too complicated 8. The rule forces future rules to be long. 9. Knowledge of languages other than English is necessary 10. The rule gets too close to invalidation. 11. Spelling errors. 12. The rule causes too much work for the players and the judge. 13. The rule, or its restriction, is unclear. 14. The rule imposes a restriction that is already in force. 15. The rule does not follow its own restriction. 16. A first rule makes the round look too much like an older one. 17. The rule is invalidated because of a restriction in another rule by the same player. 18. The rule requires some knowledge (other than lingual) that is not present with the judge. 19. The rule is too restrictive. 20. The restriction is similar to an earlier restriction in the same round. - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For positive stylepoints, these are the top-10 reasons: 1. The rule is short 2. Finding a loophole in, or a way around, another rule (and using it). 3. Sticking to the theme. 4. A first rule that sticks to or enforces the theme. 5. Giving a nice new twist to the round. 6. Good response to another rule. 7. Being that player's debut rule. 8. The restrictions in the rule are adhered to by past rules too. 9. The rule is deliberately invalid. (for some reason those things often are very stylish anyway) 10. Humor, irony. ====================================================================== On another note: Orjan, would you please send me the bounced messages ASAP? Andre ------------------------------ From: KUNNE@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR Date: Thu, 25 Apr 96 16:38:19 SET Subject: Question about 55:6 I have a question about 55:6.. >>>> >Because I know that many of you have not submitted presentations >of yourselves to our own FRC Web page, and because most of those that >have have not updated theirs in a long time, I mention > >http://193.156.89.80/brukere/stein/frc/ > >and require that for all players, their next rule must include - or be >accompanied in the same post by - an up to date presentation of themselves >*and* the URL of their home page if any. >>>> What is the topdomain of the URL? I guess it is "no" rather than "80" as I have this page bookmarked beginning with "x.y.no". Second question. In 55:1 I talked about "Web page". Could one of the Webexperts or the Judge tell me if URLs that do not start with http: (like ftp:, gopher: or news:) are "Web pages"? Greetings, Ronald ------------------------------ From: Jeremy D Selengut Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 11:17:35 EDT Subject: The proposal to Invalidate 55:5 I think Residue's aparrent restrictions on the Judge's actions in 55:5 > The Judge shall roll a six-sided die whenever a rule > is declared valid. On a roll of 5 or 6, The Judge shall announce, as part of > the judgment commentary, that the rule's author is trapped at eir current > location, effective immediately after the rule was posted. can be interpreted as predictions of future real world events. This has precedent, and a false prediction does not invalidate a rule. If a rule says the Dow Jones average shall rise next wednesday, it does not suddenly become invalid next wednesday if the Dow falls. The rule is not 'conditionally' VALID or any such thing, the prediction is merely irrelevant to the validity of the rule b/c a rule is only invalid if it is, from R.O. 6: > inconsistent with itself, previously posted valid fantasy rules, or > the regular ordinances Making a false statements has generally not been found to be necessarily self-inconsistent (merely inconsistent with the "real world"). Thus, 55:5 predicts that the Judge will take certain actions and specifies certain game consequences if those actions actually come to pass. (Analagous to a rule which states that if the temperature in Miami is over 85 degrees on the day of a future rule's posting, that rule must be exactly 10 line long.) It seems to me that the Judge is under no obligation to do anything at all (he doesn't even need to make a judgement, rules are VALID if the Judge does nothing...), but if e happens to do those things, then the Judge has every right to declare INVALID future rules which are inconsistent with the consequences of those actions (as specified by 55:5). Clearly, under this interpretation, this rule does not specify any new "effect[s] on play" not specified by the R.O.'s (R.O. #1). Consequently, I vote AGAINST this proposal, and urge those voting FOR it to reconsider their votes. - -Jeremy ------------------------------ From: "John M. Goodman II" Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 11:35:41 -0500 Subject: Rule 55:7 >>>>> It may be a very obvious advertising ploy, but none the less I will mention http://www.nether.net/~brynn/frc.htm, the home page of newly developed Escape Inc. Acutally, I think some of us will find Escape Inc. very useful, if they can afford it. As you may or may not know, I am actually one of the Illuminati who are striving for world domination. Therefore, I have secret control of many URL's. I am also the Grand High Pooh-bah of the Secret Society for the Abolition of Secret Societies (it's address will be included in this post, but is not mentioned in this rule). Anyone mentioning one of the URL's which I control (these include all URL's which contain "fnord" "illuminati" or "secret society") must do a job for me. They must find the URL of a Secret Society which is not mentioned on any of the Secret Soceity for the Abolition of Secret Societies' pages, and post it to frc@nvg.unit.no. >>>>> My name's John M. Goodman II, and I'm a Journalism student at Oral Roberts University, in Tulsa, Oklahoma. I'm origionally from Cincinnati, Ohio, however, and can't wait to get home! I just thought you might all wanna know who I am, and I hope this is a valid presentation of myself :). I'm new to FRC--if this is valid it'll be my FIRST valid rule. :) Hope it's creative enough. Check out my hope page (below), it's the Secret Society for the Abolition of Secret Societies' home page, as I mentioned in my rule. John M. Goodman II ORU CPO Box 711358 Tulsa, OK 74171 jgoodman3855@stu.oru.edu http://www.lookup.com/homepages/73870/ssftass.html ------------------------------ From: Orjan Johansen Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 01:47:16 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: Re: On residue's rule On Thu, 25 Apr 1996 KUNNE@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR wrote: > This means IMO, that the judge is not restricted by the Rules: e merely > has to decide whether, in eir opinion, a rule is consistent with other > rules. E is not obliged to obey the rules, like the players are. Members are not obliged to obey the rules either. Only the rules are. Greetings, Oerjan. - -- "[There] is a special class for family members which also incidentally includes vegetables." - David Roberts about the Zulu language ------------------------------ From: Orjan Johansen Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 01:59:24 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: Re: How to loose stylepoints On Thu, 25 Apr 1996, Andre Engels wrote: > Going through the archives I have made a top-20 of the most used ways to > loose stylepoints. Of course the grouping in categories is subjective. I think maybe I should put this list in the archive too. > 6. Strange restrictions. Huh? As long as they are within the theme, why should that be bad? > 9. Knowledge of languages other than English is necessary > 18. The rule requires some knowledge (other than lingual) that is not > present with the judge. A bit of obscure trivia is fun now and then. I guess "present" includes information sent to the Judge under separate cover? > On another note: Orjan, would you please send me the bounced messages ASAP? I have so done. Greetings, Oerjan. - -- "[There] is a special class for family members which also incidentally includes vegetables." - David Roberts about the Zulu language ------------------------------ End of frc-digest V1 #332 *************************