From: owner-frc-digest To: frc-digest@nvg.unit.no Subject: frc-digest V1 #438 Reply-To: frc Errors-To: owner-frc-digest Precedence: bulk frc-digest Thursday, 4 April 1996 Volume 01 : Number 438 Re: 53:10 and 53:11 Judgement Start of new Round? Re: 53:10 and 53:11 Judgement Re: Start of new Round? Re: Start of new Round? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: KUNNE@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR Date: Wed, 03 Apr 96 08:20:07 SET Subject: Re: 53:10 and 53:11 Judgement Hi Members, here is my belated reply. (Belated as I had a nightshift and consequently didn't bother to come to work yesterday.) The Judge writes: >Judgement: It is valid; according to Residue, "Neue Haas Grotesk" was >the original name for the classic font "Helvetica". Which seems to ring >a bell, so I guess he's right. Belated congratulations to Sharkey on >digging up that "grotesque" bit of trivia. I'm not exactly sure how to >measure Watergate, so I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt. The >"oblique reference" should be sc--uh, surprisingly easy to see. :) Not for me, I afraid. I know that Watergate is a building as well as the name of a scandal, but that is as far as it goes. I have, for instance, no idea about the physical size of the Watergate building. >Style: .5 for coming up with the font reference; 1 for the classic and >its oblique reference. At least, that's what Sharkey gets, for coming >up with the rule. Ronald gets -1 for copying it unnecessarily. I copied it, because (like the Judge :-) I hadn't found the "Grotesk" typeface in the encyclopaedia they have in the library. (Not surprising: it has only 6 parts and is still on, aargh, paper...). Hence I concluded (no doubt a bit prematurely) that this was an all-American Rule, and decided to retaliate with a French one. (Note that I am *not* French...) Now for my ideas on .... >| 53:11--Ronald | Style | >| | Points | >>>>>> >The previous rule is a classic case of Plagiarism! Reading 53:1-53:3 I think I am allowed to make the genre refer to the whole Rule rather than to Watergate only. >The Rule features Napoleon's Waterloo "Waterloo", sponsored by >Marechal Michel Ney, one of the few on the French side who didn't make >a fool of himself on this "field of tears". Michel Ney was one of Napoleon's Marechals at the battle of Waterloo. Napoleon must have had a good public relations manager, as Ney was charged with recapturing Napoleon after he'd escaped from the island of Elba. But instead Ney went to work for Napoleon, an act of treason for which he later was sentenced to death. He distinguished himself in the battle of Waterloo (contrary to some other French generals, who made some drastic mistakes). 53:8 requires me to include a "clue as to its classic's type". "Waterloo" is a classic example of a battlefield, and somebodies Waterloo is the occasion on which he looses. That is a classic example of a proverb. "Field of tears" or "Champ de larmes" hints at both. (I was quite amused with my wordplay...) >As the size of a classic is hard to determine in most case, I define: >size of an item: either its Real Life surface or as many square kilometers >as there are characters in its name. It is in the best of the FRC tradition that words have their common English meaning, unless explicitly defined otherwise in a Rule. As Sharkey mentioned that "size of a classic" is hard to judge and as we have a restriction on those sizes, I thought it useful to give a definition. Otherwise, how are we going to know the size of a classic book, movie or other unsizable classic? The Judge remarks: >do.... I, for one, can't find the "oblique reference" (or at least, I >can't puzzle it out), nor have I any idea who M. Ney is, or how he is >connected to Waterloo. Must be because I'm not French. Ney is not in your encyclopaedia? Surprising.... As for not being French, neither am I. >As for the >"size of an item"... blech. Now each item can have two possible sizes? Why not? This being FRC and such? >> I hate to say this, but I didn't understand, neither the "Grotesk" >> Rule nor Sharkey's reply. > >What didn't you understand? The oblique reference was a play on the >word "type". I suspected as much, but when I couldn't find the "Grotesk" nor "Hoffman", and when my wife suggested that he was an architect, I decided not to take any chances and submit two Rules. This also gave me the chance to refer to a whole Rule as the classic, an idea which I got already when seeing 53:1 for the first time. Greetings, Ronald ------------------------------ From: KUNNE@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR Date: Wed, 03 Apr 96 13:50:48 SET Subject: Start of new Round? The April Fool's Rule made me wonder if it doesn't make sense to start a new Round, *before* the old one has finished. The advantage is obvious: it keeps the eliminated Members playing. Items to be discussed are: - who will judge the new Round? (for instance the Member with the longest Eligibility at the time a new Round can start) - when does the new Round start? (ASAP after a the previous Round is seven days old? Every 2nd and 4th Wednesday of the month? ASAP as two Players are left?) Greetings, Ronald ------------------------------ From: John Williams Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 09:28:22 -700 (MST) Subject: Re: 53:10 and 53:11 Judgement On Wed, 3 Apr 1996 KUNNE@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR wrote: > The Judge writes: > >Style: .5 for coming up with the font reference; 1 for the classic and > >its oblique reference. At least, that's what Sharkey gets, for coming > >up with the rule. Ronald gets -1 for copying it unnecessarily. > > I copied it, because (like the Judge :-) I hadn't found the "Grotesk" > typeface in the encyclopaedia they have in the library. (Not surprising: > it has only 6 parts and is still on, aargh, paper...). What?! You still use paper? The answer was at the first site found by an Alta-Vista search. The silent movie was a bit harder. I never actually found "The battle of Gettysburg", but checking a couple library catalogs (via telnet, of course) yielded a couple other works by the same person, both with the subject heading Classic Silent Films. > >As the size of a classic is hard to determine in most case, I define: > >size of an item: either its Real Life surface or as many square kilometers > >as there are characters in its name. > > It is in the best of the FRC tradition that words have their common > English meaning, unless explicitly defined otherwise in a Rule. > As Sharkey mentioned that "size of a classic" is hard to judge and as > we have a restriction on those sizes, I thought it useful to give a > definition. Otherwise, how are we going to know the size of a > classic book, movie or other unsizable classic? I did think of one classic (with an N-sponsor) which was _definitely_ smaller than Neue Haas Grotesk. Unfortunately, the title was only three words. ~sharkey ------------------------------ From: Matthew Ryan Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 14:04:51 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: Start of new Round? KUNNE@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR wrote: > >The April Fool's Rule made me wonder if it doesn't make sense to >start a new Round, *before* the old one has finished. > >The advantage is obvious: it keeps the eliminated Members playing. I'd be in favor of this. I would want people to be more careful to indicate what round their non-rule posts referred to, but other than that I foresee no problem. >Items to be discussed are: > - who will judge the new Round? (for instance the Member with the >longest Eligibility at the time a new Round can start) How about winner of round 52 would judge and set the theme for round 54, and 53->55. Evens and odds. (Remembering that a judge can select their stand-in.) > - when does the new Round start? (ASAP after a the previous Round is >seven days old? Every 2nd and 4th Wednesday of the month? ASAP as >two Players are left?) I'd suggest ASAP when two players are left. There's a lot of people interested in playing with nothing to do at that point. If the two current most successful players want to juggle two rounds at once, that's up to them. (The one-week window at the start of the round will probably give them time to finish up anyway.) There'll be more rounds per unit time this way. I'd also point out that no-one would *have* to participate more - just sit out rounds you don't have time for. Allows for more selectivity. - -Matt Ryan, aka Curious Of All Natures mbr2@midway.uchicago.edu http://uhs.bsd.uchicago.edu/~matt/ ================================ ==================================== Let us treat men and women well; If you dare to be who you truly want treat them as if they were real. to be, you risk enjoying every day Perhaps they are. --R.W.Emerson of your life. --Desmond Atholl ================================ ==================================== ------------------------------ From: peter@wolfenet.com (Peter Sarrett) Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 15:02:05 -0800 Subject: Re: Start of new Round? >>The April Fool's Rule made me wonder if it doesn't make sense to >>start a new Round, *before* the old one has finished. I'm against this, for the following reasons: 1) I think it's kinda rude. Players are finishing a game which, often, has been hard-fought. Starting up a new game amidst the end of the old is like saying the rest of the players really don't care who wins the old one. Which may be true, but is rude nonetheless. The focus shouldn't be taken away from the ending game. While the game is still in progress, it shouldn't be yesterday's news. 2) The potential for confusion. Active rounds often start with a flurry of activity, and if rules for multiple rounds were being posted at the same time, it could get ugly. 3) The whole POINT is that the winner of the previous round selects the theme for and judges the next. If the previous round hasn't been won... Well, OK, the point is to have fun. But you get my meaning. - Peter ------------------------------ End of frc-digest V1 #438 *************************