Round 100 Summary: Theme - Crime and Punishment Chuck wins the round, and is the new Wizard Judge. Which is quite appropriate, as he also committed more crimes than any other player... Judge Anton Player Eligible until (GMT) Style ----------------------------------------------- Chuck 21 Oct 03:27:27 +2.0 Stein +1.5 Garth +1.0 Juliette +1.5 Ed Murphy -1.0 Others +0.0 Jevon -2.0 Jeremy +1.0 Rule Author Posted at (GMT) Verdict Style ---------------------------------------------------- 100:1 Jeremy 29 Sep 14:01:56 VALID +1.5 100:2 Jevon 30 Sep 01:48:25 VALID +0.0 100:3 Chuck 30 Sep 04:29:04 VALID +0.5 100:4 Ed Murphy 30 Sep 08:32:09 VALID -1.0 100:5 Jevon 1 Oct 01:32:53 INVALID -2.0 100:6 Juliette 1 Oct 13:10:24 VALID +1.5 100:7 Stein 1 Oct 15:55:17 VALID +1.5 100:8 Jeremy 2 Oct 16:50:59 INVALID +1.5 100:9 Jeremy 2 Oct 19:54:52 INVALID -2.0 100:10 Garth 5 Oct 13:02:59 VALID +1.0 At this point the Judge decreed a 26 hour day, and thus changed from Grossly Mistaken Time to old-fashioned GMT. 100:11 Chuck 7 Oct 04:26:37 VALID +0.5 100:12 Stein 7 Oct 10:21:11 VALID +0.0 100:13 Chuck 14 Oct 03:27:27 VALID +1.0 Criminal Crimes found guilty of -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chuck being born Having Already Posted a Valid Rule This Round Harsh Sentencing Being Among the Last Three Eligible to Play Extreme Validity FRaCial Discrimination Breach of copyright Stein being born Having Already Posted a Valid Rule This Round Harsh Sentencing Being Among the Last Three Eligible to Play Breach of copyright FRaCial Discrimination Garth being born Having Already Posted a Valid Rule This Round Breach of copyright Being Among the Last Three Eligible to Play Juliette being born Having Already Posted a Valid Rule This Round Harsh Sentencing Ed Murphy being born Having Already Posted a Valid Rule This Round Harsh Sentencing Breach of copyright Others being born Jevon being born Having Already Posted a Valid Rule This Round wasting bandwidth Breach of copyright Jeremy being born Having Already Posted a Valid Rule This Round Harsh Sentencing Breach of copyright wasting bandwidth With the exception of Ed (who was innocent) it was not determined whether any of the above are in fact guilty of Not Being A Texan. ^^^^^^^^ 100:1 - Jeremy - VALID - (+1.5) Freedom is (or should be) a universal human right. The FRC has its own version of it, FRCeedom, which allows that only criminals may have their ability to express themselves in the form of Rules curtailed in any way. This has been broadly interpreted (in this round) to mean that no restriction of any kind may apply to any rule unless its author has committed a particular crime _prior_ to submitting that rule. Justice in FRC-land is swift and effective, but also fair: the restrictions found in a particular rule cannot be applied in a blanket fashion to perpetrators of crimes in general, but rather only to the set of criminals who have committed a particular crime. Each rule which specifies one or more restrictions must also specify a single crime for which this(these) restriction(s) are the punishment. Our society is an egalitarian one, so that no one should feel too holier-than-thou about not being a criminal, we believe in original sin. That is to say we are born as criminals, guilty of merely being born. Of course, the restictions in this rule are the fruits of this universal crime. Verdict: A perfectly valid first rule. Sentence: Overall, a good start. Should lead to an interesting round, and with a couple of nice touches. If it were not the first rule (and had had a less convoluted phraseology) I would have scored it even more highly. As it is: +1.5 Style Points. ^^^^^^^^ 100:2 - Jevon - VALID - (+0.0) Anyone who submits an invalid rule is guilty of the crime of "wasting bandwidth", and, as a punishment, any such criminals must publicly apologize in their next message. Verdict: No problems with validity. Sentence: On the plus side, this rule is concise, and makes use of both aspects of the theme. No great originality in the crime however, and the punishment is a pretty unexciting one. Overall: +0 Style Points. ^^^^^^^^ 100:3 - Chuck - VALID - (+0.5) Our society, being a fair one, does not like to impose retroactive restrictions on crimes. That is to say, no Rule can make any action, which was committed before the posting of that Rule, a crime. However, since we don't want to be too harsh on newbie legislators, this restriction applies only to those who have committed the crime of Having Already Posted a Valid Rule This Round. Verdict: Certainly guilty of validity. Sentence: It is good to see this common offence finally being recognised. Further, the restriction is reasonable enough, if not particularly original. However the second sentence could be better phrased (the Judge shall generously interpret it so as not to contradict the following one). Future legislators are duly warned that the Judge is already tired of hearing of our society's fairness - laudable as this may be. In summary: +0.5 Style Points ^^^^^^^^ 100:4 - Ed Murphy - VALID - (-1.0) Anyone who has committed the crime of Not Being A Texan is prohibited from using the word "dude" in a rule. Verdict: Valid. Sentence: Well, the rule is at least short. But the Judge finds little else to commend in this submission. "Not Being a Texan" is impossible to judge - so until this is clarified (or someone admits their guilt) innocence will be assumed. As for prohibiting the word "dude", this hardly seems a serious punishment. However, the Judge suspects this rule was not intended to be taken too seriously, and so will most generously restrict himself to -1 Style Points. ^^^^^^^^ 100:5 - Jevon - INVALID - (-2.0) Any crimes with no specific penalties are hereby known as "Degrading Crimes". All who are guilty of the crime of "Using the letter 'A' in a rule" must, as punishment, describe a degrading crime in each future rule they submit. Verdict: The crime described in this rule has already been committed in 100:4. As Jevon is guilty of "Having Already Posted a Valid Rule This Round", he is by 100:3 unable to introduce such retroactive crimes. Thus, this rule is invalid. Sentence: The Judge finds little to commend in this rule. The crime introduced is most unoriginal, and the punishment will merely lengthen rules, without adding any restrictions. Could not a better name for "Degrading Crimes" have been found? Being so clearly invalid does not help on the Style front either. -2 Style Points. ^^^^^^^^ 100:6 - Juliette - VALID - (+1.5) Players commit "Breach of copyright" on using the same word twice in a rule, punishment for this minor crime being that duplicated words must be reused at least once during all subsequent valid rules submitted by him (or her). Verdict: Valid - despite the number of rules submitted, it would have been hard to be otherwise.... Sentence: A pleasant rule. The crime is a reasonable one, given its name. As for the punishment, this seems quite appropriate (though the Judge may regret this when adjudicating on later rules..). It is also nice that the rule does not commit the crime it describes. Not having had to use the loophole in 100:3 would have increased its stylishness - but (adding in a traditional bonus for a first rule), the Judge makes this worth +1.5 Style Points. ^^^^^^^^ 100:7 - Stein - VALID - (+1.5) Any legislator who prescribes, either explicitly, or implicitly by not saying otherwise, a punishment lasting longer than 7 days has committed the crime of Harsh Sentencing. The punishment for this is that the next punishment for a crime prescribed by the same legislator will not be incurred by any other legislator in committing such a crime within a rule that renders it author guilty of Harsh Sentencing. This hold implicitly even if not mentioned specially in the rule prescribing the punishment. Verdict: Valid. Sentence: In many ways a good rule. The crime is an interesting one, with a number of potential pitfalls hidden in it. And the punishment lets Stein avoid the previous rule. The rule could trip up a number of the unwary too. However, the last paragraph is legalese at its worst - and certainly none too stylish. On balance: +1.5 Style Points. ^^^^^^^^ 100:8 - Jeremy - INVALID - (+1.5) We are celebrating a centennial (we have had 100 rounds since this forum was born), which means that it's most important to submit stylish rules so that this one will be regarded as a universal good read; lest we find ourselves criminals in the commission of STYLELESSNESS: Crime: Having obtained from the Judge any negative style point rating for a previous rule posting, whether that rule is judged Valid or Invalid. But, consistent with rule #3, this only applies from here on in in the round. Punishment: Perpetrators of this crime must compose a poem in praise of FRC-land in subsequent rule entries. Upon receipt of positive SP's no further ones need be composed. Note that the individual in question may still be considered a criminal and in fact, should this person after being cleared of the above restriction become a "repeat offender," then future rule attempts by that author are required to be at least 10% shorter (in number of words) than all of his prior rule submissions. It seems that, due to its restrictions, this particular rule has committed Harsh Sentencing. Verdict: Unfortunately for Jeremy, the list of 30 words that he sent me did not include OR, BEING, SHOULD and ALSO. He gets away with the first three as they occur in this rule anyway - but the absence of the last renders the rule invalid. Note that Jeremy is _not_ saved from 100:6 by 100:7. Sentence: A valiant attempt to avoid falling foul of 100:6. The crime (and its justification) are reasonable enough - although the Judge is not so keen on the punishment! Initially, the restriction to all future rules seemed weak - but as it enables the required use of the word only, it is acceptable. "Repeat offender" is nice, as is the use of it to introduce two different sets of restrictions - in apparent (but only apparent) contradiction of 100:1. A small bonus for effort - which would have been bigger if successful! In conclusion : +1.5 Style Points ^^^^^^^^ 100:9 - Jeremy - INVALID - (-2.0) We are celebrating a centennial (we have had 100 rounds since this forum was born), which means that it's most important to submit stylish rules so that this one will be regarded as a universal good read; lest we find ourselves criminals in the commission of STYLELESSNESS: Crime: Having obtained from the Judge any negative style point rating for a previous rule posting, whether that rule is judged Valid or Invalid. But, consistent with rule #3, this only applies from here on in in the round. Punishment: Perpetrators of this crime must compose a poem in praise of FRC-land in subsequent rule entries. Upon receipt of positive SP's no further ones need be composed. Note that the individual in question may still be considered a criminal and in fact, should this person after being cleared of the above restriction become a "repeat offender," then future rule attempts by that author are required to be at least 10% shorter (in number of words) than all of his prior rule submissions. Also, it seems that, due to its restrictions, this particular rule has committed Harsh Sentencing. Verdict: Oh dear. Invalid again. But this time for rather more subtle reasons. By 100:2 - unless Jevon is guilty of harsh sentencing - Jeremy must apologise for his last submission (which he does not). But is Jevon guilty? Harsh sentencing consists of prescribing a punishment lasting longer than 7 days. But 100:2 says that the punishment for wasting bandwidth occurs in the next rule posted by that player - which cannot occur later than 7 days hence. So Jevon is innocent, and this rule cannot stand. Note that if Jevon's other rule (100:5) was valid, he would be guilty and this rule would survive. Sentence: Resubmission of rules is not in general approved of by the Judge. In this case he finds it understandable (all future rules by Jeremy will have to contain a large overlap!) - but in order for it to be even slightly stylish, the resubmission should have corrected the error in Jeremy's earlier claim (not to breach copyright) by removing one of the two FROMs. Resubmission also seems against the spirit of ensuring "a universal good read". For a rule obsessed with style, such lapses should probably be more severely punished; hence the Judge awards -2 Style Points. ^^^^^^^^ 100:10 - Garth - VALID - (+1.0) One of the most cherished of principles is enshrined in the FouRCteenth Amendment, which forbids discriminating on the basis of FRaCe. The inhabitants of FRC-land come in three FRaCes, to wit: 1) The Wizard, who constitutes a group of eir own and belongs to no other; 2) Those others whose names contain one or more of the letters F, R, or C (called the FRCiends); and 3) Everyone else (the FRCemnant). The author of any future rule that at any one time punishes or restricts more members of one of the above groups than it does of the other two together is guilty of the crime of 'FRaCial Discrimination', and must explicitly attempt to redress this injustice in eir next valid rule. Verdict: Valid. Sentence: The Judge is not sure if he likes this rule. In principle it has much going for it. The crime is an original one - especially as it is 'dynamic', ie is not necessarily committed during the act of submitting a rule, but at any time thereafter. However, the punishment for this crime is far too vague - how does one "redress this injustice"? In practice, this crime will also (most likely) be synonymous with "submitting a non-trivial valid rule", as the first time any future submission has any effect it will (probably!) be guilty of discrimination. Also the three FRaCes could have been better chosen - given who the Wizard is! On a more trivial note, the Judge has long felt that the insertion of capitalised FRCs in other words can be taken too far. In his opinion, their addition to words like remnant (with only one of the three letters pre-exisiting) seems a bit weak. Finally (though this does not affect the style mark), the (NB English) Judge finds the first sentence redundant - are the added letters suppose to make this witty? The Judge (still not entirely sure that the above is not a little harsh) awards this rule +1.0 Style Points. ^^^^^^^^ 100:11 - Chuck - VALID - (+0.5) Our society, while reasonably fair, strives (at Judge Anton's recommendation) to be less so. Given that, anyone who has committed the crime of Not Using "C", "E", "N", "T", "U", "R", and "Y" (case-insensitive) in a Rule must use at least one word beginning with each such letter twice within his or her next posted Fantasy Regulation. On fulfilling this restriction, he/she shall refrain from posting for two days. Verdict: Valid. Sentence: If only the remainder of the rule had lived up to the promise of the first sentence, it would have been most stylish. However, the rest of the rule is not quite so good. While it does fail in its avowed aim to avoid any breaches of copyright, this is mitigated by the non-repetition of previous breaches (unlike, say, 100:8 or 9). The crime has the merit of not having been committed by any rule to date - but then it is so easy to do this that the restriction is ultimately rather weak. As for the punishment, the first part requires the criminal to commit a new crime (which does not seem in keeping with the spirit of the round!) - while the last part does the most damage to this rule's style rating, as the Judge is not at all keen on restrictions which prevent the submission of rules. In summary: +0.5 ^^^^^^^^ 100:12 - Stein - VALID - (+0.0) By the laws of the FRC: As punishment for Being Among the Last Three Eligible to Play, any legislator that commits this crime must immediately and explicitly, not implicitly, confess to having committed a crime in his/her previous rule. I did commit Harsh Sentencing in rule 100:7 Verdict: Valid. Stein includes all the words repeated in his earlier rule, which raises an interesting question. As 100:7 is guilty of harsh sentencing, the next punishment for a crime due to Stein is waived. So: is this punishment the one due to Juliette for committing harsh sentencing in 100:6? The crime occured before 100:7, but what about the punishment? If this did not occur before 100:7, then by 100:7 harsh sentencing is waived, and Stein must repeat all breaches of copyright in later rules. However, in the Judge's opinion, the punishment occured before this, and hence is not "the next punishment". Recall from 100:9 (verdict) the discussion of punishments. Implicit in this was that any punishment starts from the moment the crime is committed, and not from the moment that the punishment is actively carried out. Indeed, it is only by this interpretation that 100:7 is guilty of harsh sentencing. So it is not necessary for Stein to repeat words from 100:7, as Juliette's punishment started before 100:7 and hence has not been waived. Sentence: Not the most exciting of crimes, or punishments. (Though the Judge does wonder if he is missing something...) The Judge dislikes the use of the word "immediately" - if meant at all literally the round would have to end in a most unsatisfactory manner, while the obvious 'sensible' interpretation does not seem particularly immediate... This rule may have been thought more stylish if the repeated words had been necessary - but they are not. Stylewise: +0.0 Note: This rule was probably submitted under the (reasonable) assumption that there were only three remaining players. However, neither the verdict nor the sentence are affected by the altered circumstances. ^^^^^^^^ 100:13 - Chuck - VALID - (+1.0) I committed Breach of Copyright at my previous post. On submitting three Valid Rules that had no intervening Invalid ones, a player commits the crime, "Extreme Validity". To atone for this, his next legal Rule must be thirty words or less. Verdict: Valid. Sentence: Short, and to the point. Avoids Breach of Copyright (but no marks for this any more). To be guilty of FRaCial Discrimination against himself is nice. "Extreme Validity" is OK too. As for the punishment, this is hardly innovative - but given the nature of the round (especially with Breach of Copyright) it seems quite appropriate. In conclusion, although there is nothing too fancy about this rule, it all adds up to a solid +1.0 Style Points. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------