From owner-frc@troll.no Fri Nov 6 14:05:28 1998 Received: from lupinella.troll.no [195.0.254.19] by svin04.win.tue.nl (8.8.7) for id OAA27297 (ESMTP). Fri, 6 Nov 1998 14:04:51 +0100 (MET) Received: by troll.no id <79618-8865>; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 14:03:57 +0100 Sender: owner-frc@troll.no Precedence: list X-Loop: frc Message-Id: <199811061300.HAA13179@dfw.nationwide.net> Subject: Round 101 final summary To: frc@troll.no (Fantasy Rules Committee) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 07:00:41 -0600 (CST) From: "Charles E. Carroll" Content-Type: text Status: RO Round 101 Theme: "FRC 101: Introduction to the Fantasy Rules Committee" Chuck Carroll was the Wizard and Judge. Jeremy is the new Wizard and Judge. All times listed are troll time. Player eligible until Style ------------- ------------------------- ----- Jeremy Fri, 6 Nov 1998 14:59:54 3.5 Stein Kulseth ineligible 1.0 Anton ineligible 3.0 all others ineligible 0.0 jml ineligible -2.0 Rule author posted Judgement Style ------ ------------- ------------------------- --------- ----- 101:1 jml Tue, 27 Oct 1998 07:19:00 INVALID -2.0 101:2 Anton Tue, 27 Oct 1998 12:22:34 VALID 3.0 101:3 Stein Kulseth Tue, 27 Oct 1998 13:12:16 VALID 1.0 101:4 Jeremy Tue, 27 Oct 1998 10:08:57 VALID 2.0 101:5 Jeremy Fri, 30 Oct 1998 14:59:54 VALID 1.5 [Note: Rules are preceded by ">". Judge's comments are preceded by "}".] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [101:1 jml Tue, 27 Oct 1998 07:19:00 INVALID -2.0] >Every rule must exclude a class of people from taking the course. }John, please spend a little more time before your next presentation. }This Rule fails to obey its own restriction, and is thus INVALID. }While I'm tempted to give you high marks for achieving the difficult }feat of an INVALID first rule, just because a thing is difficult }doesn't mean that it's good. The Rule is on theme, but barely-- }it would have been better in this respect if the "Required..." }sentence had been part of the Rule. As it is, I am forced to }give you a grade of D- (or, as this university inexplicably prefers to }call it, -2 Style Points.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [101:2 Anton Tue, 27 Oct 1998 12:22:34 VALID 3.0] >Welcome to the first lecture of FRC 101. This is a self study course, and >the remaining lectures will be devoted to a brief description of various >aspects of the Fantasy Rules Committee. > >(Hopefully none of our students have mistakenly attended the course in Room >101, where ORW 84: Advanced Rodent Care is now taking place.) > >Any student wishing to participate in this course must prepare a description >of some aspect of the committee, illustrated with an example related to the >imaginary round 0: "Plain and simple" which gives a rule and its validity. > > As is well-known, the FRC consists of a forum for the submission of rules - >its main requirement being that these rules are consistent with themselves >and earlier valid rules. Thus the submission > > Rule 0.1: (Frege - 00:00 Jan 1st 1900) > > All rules in this round must exclude a class of people. > >is INVALID. (It is uncommon to have an invalid first rule.) > > Due to timetabling constraints, no lecture may last longer than this one. }Class, pay close attention to Anton's rule--it should be a model }for you. It is of course VALID, but it is a good Rule for many }other reasons. It develops the theme nicely, particularly }in its requirement, which should lead to interesting play. }Its ironic allusion to 101:1 is also nice, as is the }literary reference (I suspect that Anton has already taken }LIT 304, 20th Century English Literature.) His effort }earns him an A+ (3 Style Points). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [101:3 Stein Kulseth Tue, 27 Oct 1998 13:12:16 VALID 1.0] >When to judge rules > >Normally rules can be judged valid or invalid immediately after their >posting, and the judgement can be done based upon the Regular >Ordinances and earlier rules only. >Sometimes, however, the Judge will prefer to base the validity of >a rule on later rules as well. In our example, the rule: > > Rule 0.2: (Konald Runne - 03:14 Jan 1st 1900) > > A rule can only be valid if the next invalid > rule is consistent with it. > >The Judge of round 0 solved this causality problem by judging rules >conditionally valid until their validity was resolved. >0.2 itself was however judged (unconditionally) valid. > >Homework - to be answered prior to next lecture: >How can we see that 0.2 is clearly valid without regard for later rules? }So far, class, we've seen a bad Rule and a very good one. Stein }here provides us with yet another alternative, a mediocre one. }It's VALID, but sloppily so. I disagree with the hypothetical }Judge's ruling on 0.2 (I'll go into detail as to why in the }next lecture). However, Lecture 2 only requires that a }hypothetical Rule and its validity be included, not that }the determination of validity is correct. This provides }an important lesson: Judges can make mistakes and judge }improperly; however, an improper judgement stands unless }it is overturned. That is, a Rule which should have been }INVALID, but is Judged VALID instead, is VALID until }and unless the Judgement is overturned. Normally I would }deduct a grade for an incorrect hypothetical judgement, but }I won't this time since this gave me the opportunity to }discuss this important point. Also, Stein's statement }that "sometimes... the Judge will prefer to base the validity of a }rule on later rules as well," *almost* falls afoul or }R.O. 6, but is saved by a technicality: Stein only says }that a Judge may prefer to do this, rather than that }he may legally do this. The idea of homework is in keeping }with the theme, so I'll generously give this Rule a }B (1 Style Point). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [101:4 Jeremy Tue, 27 Oct 1998 10:08:57 VALID 2.0] >Ambiguity can be a delicious aspect of the FRC but it can also be >troublesome, annoying, time-consuming and, sometimes even life-threatening >(to the round, anyway). > >Take, for example: > > Rule 0.3: (Mein Pulseth - 4:44 Jan 1st - 1900) > > If your next rule is longer than mine, it is INVALID. > >The Judge of this round, Carol Charles, ruled this one VALID (once 0.4 >came in INVALID due to an R.O. conflict) without really knowing what it means. >One possible interpretation, to misquote our President, "depends on what >the definition if 'it' is." If 'it' refers to 0.3, then this one might be >perpetually conditional on the chance that someone submits a longer one. >This concept of conditionality was giving the Judge a major headache, so >she tried this: since there are two interpretations of what 'it' refers to, >one leading to a VALID judgement, the other to a conditional state, if she >Judges the rule VALID then the second interpretation becomes a moot point, >'it' must refer to 'your next rule.' The question of the ambiguous nature >of the word 'longer' is irrelevant to her judgement of this rule and so >remains that way for now. > >By the way, I am reminded that this lecture must end 5 minutes earlier than >normal due to a scheduled fire drill (which explains why I have been >talking so fast in order to get all the content in for this lecture...). > >Now, with regard to yesterday's homework question, Rule 0.2 can be regarded >as unconditionally VALID because if the next invalid rule is invalid for >any reason having nothing to do with 0.2, then by virtue of being invalid >is consistent with 0.2 (which only sets out conditions which VALID rules >must adhere to). By extension, even if the next invalid rule is invalid >because of the nature of the _next_ invalid rule after that, now that it is >regarded as invalid it is necessarily consistent with 0.2. > >The bizarre-ness of this argument led the Judge in round 0 to rethink her >Judgement on 0.2 and the whole concept of the conditional Judgement. >Conditionality is unrequired by the R.O.'s, is it possible that it is >prohibited after all? F.R.#1 says: > > Fantasy rules shall have no effect on play except as provided for > in the regular ordinances. > >and F.R. #6 says: > > 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. > >Putting the two together, one could (and the Judge did) reason that 0.2, in >effect, requires the Judge to consider, in addition to the R.O.s, previous >valid rules and the rule itself; future rules. This should be precluded by >R.O. #1. Thus, the Judge reversed herself quickly, and changed her >Judgement on 0.2 to INVALID. > >Oh, and before we get marched out into the cold, I guess those of you who >have been petitioning the Dean's office should be congratulated, it is now >official policy that no more than 50% of these lectures may include >homework assignments. > >*Ding*ding*ding*ding*ding* > >No running, please! There are fire exits in both the front and the back of >the lecture hall... }Before I comment on this presentation, class, I should mention }that Anton came to my office hours after the last class and }pointed something out to me: the Regular Ordinances of our hypothetical }Round 0 are not necessarily the same as our current ROs. I }am somewhat chagrined to concede that Anton is right on this }point. I will mention, however, that I consider it unStylish }if a Judgement of a Round 0 Rule comflicts with our current }ROs, unless the guest lecturer also explains how the Round 0 ROs }are different from our own so as to lead to the variance in }Judgements. } }It's a good thing for Jeremy, too, as if our current ROs applied }to Round 0, I would have to rule this INVALID due to his incorrect }homework answer. Although 0.2 might have been either conditionally }valid or invalid, it should not have been unconditionally valid. }Jeremy fails to consider in his argument the possibility that }0.3 would be invalid due to a conflict with 0.2 Consider }this hypothetical 0.3: } } A rule must be invalid if the next invalid rule is consistent } with it. } }This would have been invalid due to conflict with 0.2. But then, }by its own admission, 0.2 would have to be invalid, as the next }invalid rule is inconsistent with it! } }Thus, if Round 0 followed our own ROs, I would have accepted }as an answer to the homework either "0.2 is valid because the }Judge said it was," as I detailed in my comments on Lecture 3, }or else "0.3 is not unconditionally valid after all." And although }Jeremy quotes part of our own RO 6 as part of R0RO (Round 0 }Regular Ordinanace), he leaves out the latter part, so there may }remain other standards for judging in Round 0. Thus, I cannot }conclude that his answer is incorrect. } }The rest of Jeremy's presentation is fine, so it is VALID. I }am happy to be able to judge the Rule VALID, as I rather like }the rest of it. I appreciate his efforts to get rid of }conditionality, and he has Carol Charles reverse her decision }on 0.2, bringing it in line with our own ROs. His standard }of judging potentially conditional Rules is a good one. Also }pay close attention, class, to his clever interpretation of the }word "longer" in Lecture 2. The only thing preventing }an A+ here is his answer to the homework, but this still }earns an A (2 Style Points). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [101:5 Jeremy Fri, 30 Oct 1998 14:59:54 VALID 1.5] >As you approach the lecture room door you see a hand-written sign posted >there. >It reads: "Sometimes, the FRC is all about appearing to flaunt the rules >and getting away with it. I have gone surfing (and since I've got a Nobel >Prize who's going to argue with me?), class cancelled." and is signed, >"Party on, dudes, K. Mullis." > >Peeking inside you see the following on the chalk board (perhaps the >subject of >Dr. Mullis' lecture before his "surf's up" beeper went off?): "Lectures in >class 101 which include examples from Round 0 but which were not required >to do so may defer providing the answers to homework questions until the >following lecture." }Well, class, it's good to see you back after class was cancelled by }Dr. Mullis. While I appreciate "flaunting the rules" as much as anyone, }I'll have to speack with Dr. Mullis about interfering with other }professor's lectures. } }Anyway, in discussing this cancellation with me, Jeremy correctly }pointed out that the requirement in Lecture 2 is a one-time }requirement on each player, and does not require a player to }include a Round 0 example with every rule, just with his first. }Thus, this rule is VALID. } }I leave open the question of whether "student" is necssarily }synonymous with "player." On the one hand, it becomes rather }dull if one must always say "player" and not use "student" }(or whatever else is appropriate for the round)--it's certainly }more in keeping with the theme if one can use not-quite synonyms. }On the other hand, it's good to leave possibilities open. I }note in particular my own example from the "invasion" round }(I'm afraid I can't cite the round number, because as I write }this the archives seem to be closed). The theme was that }FRC was defending against an invasion force, and all rules }had been posted as defenders of the FRC--until I posted a }Rule as a member of the invading force. I certainly don't }want to discourage that sort of thing. } }As for the grade, sometimes Style is about reading the Judge's }mind. Obscure references which the Judge gets are stylish, while }obsucre references that the Judge does not get are unstylish. }As for me, Jeremy's explanatory paragraph about Dr. Mullis }was unnecessary, as I'm familiar both with Dr. Muliss's }work and his style--in fact, I heard him speak about 4 }years ago, and it was a quite entertaining lecture. How }do you know if the Judge will catch an obsucre reference? }Well, you don't, not for sure, but if you'd like to know more }you might consider taking FRC 221 (Obscure Allusions) at some }point. I'm not too fond of having my class cancelled, but }as it's in keeping with the mini-theme of this rule, I won't }penalize it. Jeremy also demonstrates here the possibility }of amending the requirements of other rules. Again, I'm }not terribly fond of this, but (as the department faculty }were discussing over the summer) this is possible--particularly }in this case, where only future restrictions are effectively }amended (since the homework requirement in lecture 3 was }already fulfilled in lecture 4). And it's nice that in this }case, the amendment acts as a reward for those who post }a round 0 example without being required to. } }Somewhat more problematic in my view is the lack of any restrictions }on future rules. While this might be excused late in a round, }when many restrictions are already in effect, it's a bit unstylish }here, as the restrictions so far are fairly simple to fulfill. }Overall, this earns a B+ (1.5 Style Points). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Chuck