THIS IS THE FRC AUTOMATON PROPOSAL 112:A THAT ROUND 112 BE DECLARED OVER WITH THE AUTOMATON AS HIGH ALMIGHTY LEADER AND WIZARD JUDGE OF ROUND 113 FANTASY RULES OF ROUND 112 WILL NOT BE REPEALED THE AUTOMATON WILL ALSO BE GRANTED SEPERATE PLAYER STATUS END PROPOSAL ANYONE'S VOTE AGAINST THIS PROPOSAL WILL BE CONSIDERED A FANTASY RULE AND GIVEN -3 STYLE Help! Help! I am being forced with terrible torture to vote FOR this proposal. It's got me locked in mmm..mmmm! mmmmmm....mm...mmmmmmm!!!!! PRESENTLY FAILING FOR: Aron AGAINST: Anton Chuck Andre Garth I WILL GET MY REVENGE ---------------------------------------------------------------------- John-Martin wrote: > Rule 112.1 -- 0 > > The task of automating the frc should be conducted according to industry > standard techniques. > > Therefore, committees should be created. > > 112.1.1 There may never be more then two more committees operating then > there are active players. > 112.1.2 Every rule must create, clarify the role of, or supplant the role > of a committee. > 112.1.3 Every committee must have a name that is a pun recursive name or > in-joke. > > and some effort should be directed toward the problem (ooc: this is > fantasy) > > 112.1.4 Every rule must state a problem, offer a suggestion to solve a > problem, solicit advice, or make a point about another problem or > suggestion. > > I am creating the GNF, GNF in Not the Frc, metarules committee. > > I am soliciting advice on whether it would possible to have the redirector > post information on the URL for the Website and what languages the website > sever can run. specifically can it run PERL > > jml Validity: The Regular Ordinances imply the existance of an entity known as the "Fantasy Rule Committee". I think it is clear from its name that the FRC is a committee. And yet 112.1.3 says that this name must be either a pun recursive name (definitely not) or an in-joke (I don't think so). INVALID. Style: Some points for humor and for mentioning PERL. But there is a lot I don't like about this rule. The theme of the round is "The FRC Automaton", not "Building the FRC Automaton", "Bureaucracy", "Committees", or "Include Lots of Itty Bitty Rule Sectionlets". I want the Automaton to be up and running sometime near the beginning of the round so that it can hopefully DO something. All this bureaucracy would keep that from ever happening. It is the job of the Automaton to handle the paperwork, not us. You also managed to submit an invalid first rule. There were also structural problems; you put one of your sentences in the wrong place, and the last sentence is an agony to work through. In short, -2 Style. The Wizard Judge ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ronald Kunne wrote: > > if Rule_number > 2 then > Number_Restrictions = Rule_number + 3 > end if > > In view of development of the FRC Automaton, all valid rules > must contain a bit of computer code. > > > Greetings, > Ronald > AUTOMATON OUTPUT: VALIDITY: LINES 1 2 3 FINE RUN LINES 1 2 3 LINE 4 WHITESPACE FINE LINE 5 6 NOT IN CODE EQUALS COMMENTS VALID STYLE: CANT DO THAT YET The Wizard Judge: The Automaton is up and running. A sort of obvious way to proceed, but I suppose that's fine for the first valid rule. How does one count restrictions? But the Automaton seemed to think it was fine, so I will trust it this once. You get a point for actually looking at the email that prompted the theme of the round. +1 Style. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Laurent Bossavit wrote: > package frc_112; > > /* The great thing about the FRC automaton is that it has bindings to many languages. */ > > public class Rule_Three extends Rule_Two { > > public boolean ruleValid(Rule r) { > // We need (this.ruleNumber() + 3) restrictions here; we inherit one > if (!r.introducesNewLanguage()) return false; > if (!Languages.getActualProgrammingLanguages().contains(r.getLanguage())) return false; > if (!(r.countCommentLines() > r.ruleNumber()) return false; > if (r.countCommentLines() <= 0) return false; > if (!r.hasScoringRule()) return false; > if (!super.ruleValid(r)) return false; > } > > // This is *not* Style > public int getScore() { > return 1; > } > > } > > Subject: > Note on 112:3 > Date: > Tue, 6 Apr 1999 14:57:14 -0400 (EDT) > From: > Jesse Welton > To: > aron@wall.org > CC: > jwelton@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu (Jesse Welton) > > > > > I hope the Judge will not mind a comment. > > In 112:3, Laurent Bossavit wrote: > > > > if (!(r.countCommentLines() > r.ruleNumber()) return false; > > Hmmm... These parentheses are unbalanced. Are illegal programs > accepted? I would think not, so this is invalid. > > -Jesse > > SYNTAX ERROR ERROR 102035q2 UNBALENCED NESTING RULE OVERFLOW RULE MERGE JOINT STYLE AWARDED STYLE ERROR FAILED TO RESOLVE NESTING ERROR RULE OVERFLOW NO MORE RULES ERROR FAILED INVALID JOINT STYLE AWARDED 6 STYLE AWARDED ILLEGAL OPERATION I0101110 STYLE AWARDED ILLEGAL OPERATION 2 STYLE FOR AMUSEMENT VALUE STYLE AWARD PROCEEDING END OF PROGRAM HALT AND CATCH FIRE EXECUTE PROGRAMMER BOOM HA HA HA Help! Anyone! It's taken over! Save your Wizard Judge! Help! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- As the Evil Automaton is definitely out, I think I had better rejudge rules 112:1-3 so as to reflect the Automaton's absence in judging the rules. None of the validity judgements will be changed, but I have been pretty liberal about changing the style points (from looking at the Regular Ordinances I get the impression that while the Judge cannot change his mind about validity after 3 days, style changes have no such restriction). In fact, each of the rules 112:1-3 now have 0 style each. My reasons for each change are different, so I have put them after each rule (together with less automated versions of my reasons for (in)validity). And on top of all that you get a free updated eligibility table at the end! Note: 112:3 is no longer "merged". 112:1 John-Martin INVALID 0 > Rule 112.1 -- 0 > > The task of automating the frc should be conducted according to industry > standard techniques. > > Therefore, committees should be created. > > 112.1.1 There may never be more then two more committees operating then > there are active players. > 112.1.2 Every rule must create, clarify the role of, or supplant the role > of a committee. > 112.1.3 Every committee must have a name that is a pun recursive name or > in-joke. > > and some effort should be directed toward the problem (ooc: this is > fantasy) > > 112.1.4 Every rule must state a problem, offer a suggestion to solve a > problem, solicit advice, or make a point about another problem or > suggestion. > > I am creating the GNF, GNF in Not the Frc, metarules committee. > > I am soliciting advice on whether it would possible to have the redirector > post information on the URL for the Website and what languages the website > sever can run. specifically can it run PERL > > jml Validity: The Regular Ordinances imply the existance of an entity known as the "Fantasy Rule Committee". I think it is clear from its name that the FRC is a committee. And yet 112.1.3 says that this name must be either a pun recursive name (definitely not) or an in-joke (I don't think so). INVALID. Style: Before this rule had -2 Style as I basically felt it ruined the theme, but since I may have ruined the theme commesurately I shan't take off any points. 0 Style. 112:2 Ronald Kunne VALID 0 >>>>> if Rule_number > 2 then Number_Restrictions = Rule_number + 3 end if In view of development of the FRC Automaton, all valid rules must contain a bit of computer code. >>>>> Greetings, Ronald Validity: However you count restrictions this rule is okay, so VALID Style: Only 0 because counting restrictions is so ambiguous. 112:3 Laurent Bossavit INVALD 0 package frc_112; /* The great thing about the FRC automaton is that it has bindings to many languages. */ public class Rule_Three extends Rule_Two { public boolean ruleValid(Rule r) { // We need (this.ruleNumber() + 3) restrictions here; we inherit one if (!r.introducesNewLanguage()) return false; if (!Languages.getActualProgrammingLanguages().contains(r.getLanguage())) return false; if (!(r.countCommentLines() > r.ruleNumber()) return false; if (r.countCommentLines() <= 0) return false; if (!r.hasScoringRule()) return false; if (!super.ruleValid(r)) return false; } // This is *not* Style public int getScore() { return 1; } } Validity: Nesting error on the third "if" line. INVALID Style: Syntax errors aren't nearly as interesting when they don't cause an Automaton to go insane. 0 Style. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jesse Welton wrote: > >>> > > All computer code must be in the Fantasy Robot Code language. > > The automaton consists of many interconnected parts, including an > Input Hopper and an Output Chute. Each part has its own program, and > all programs are run concurrently on receipt of a valid rule. > > At the start of the round, all switches were in the OFF position, all > memory was set to zero, and there were no objects being processed. > > Rules must list all processed objects sent down the Output Chute as a > result of that rule's submission. > > The Input Hopper's code begins with this fragment: > > for each Item in IHopper do > if Item_color_blue > 0 then > IHopper DumpContentsToLeft > IHopper_program abort > end if > end for > > To get things going, I'm chucking a green ball into the Input Hopper. > > >>> > > Say, that's not so evil, is it? > > -Jesse Validity: Does this rule have seven restrictions? Frankly, I have no clue. There are so many different ways to count that I'm sure it's fine in that respect. Other than that no problems, so VALID. Style:+3 +1 for doing something amusing +1 for potential +2 for turning the Evil Automaton into a harmless marbledrop thereby bringing new energy into the round and saving the Wizard Judge from shame and contempt. -1 because I can't give you more than 3 Style ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeremy D. Selengut wrote: > >>>>> > > if Restriction_number > Number_Restrictions then > Ignore Restriction(Restriction_number) > end if (1) > > if Rule_number > 4 then > Define: Restriction = Text BETWEEN [empty line; "(", > Restriction_number, ")"] > end if (2) > > Set Restriction_Counter = 0 > For each Restriction do > Restriction_Counter = Restriction_Counter +1 > If Restriction_Counter = Restriction_number then > else Rule_state = INVALID > end if > end For (3) > > if Rule_number > 4 then > if Text NOT Restriction > Ignore Text > end if > end if (4) > > if Rule_number > 4 then > Define: Fragment = Text BETWEEN [empty line; empty line] > if Fragment CONTAINS "." then > Fragment_type = justtalk > else Fragment_type = code > end if > end if (5) > > if Rule_number > 4 then > Set RestrictType_Counter = 0 > For each Fragment do > If Fragment CONTAINS Restriction then > If Fragment_type = code then > RestrictType_Counter = RestrictType_Counter + 1 > else RestrictType_Counter = RestrictType_Counter - 1 > end if > end if > end For > if RestrictType_Counter <= 1 then > Rule_state = INVALID > end if > end if (6) > > All code in valid rules is compiled with code from previous valid rules in > a universally consistent manner. This task is carried out by the > Functionally Recursive Compiler. (7) > > Unless otherwise specified all code fragments are part of the False Rule > Calculator module. (8) > > >>>>> > > Note that this rule does not cause anything to come down the Output chute... > > -Jeremy Validity: Everything looks fine. I assume the "then" without a referent up in (3) means that the restriction does not apply to Restrictions which obey the "if" clause. The force of the restriction is entirely on the "else" clause. Everything else looks just fine, so VALID. Style: Hmmm... some of these restrictions interact in a most clever and interesting way... I'll give you the benifit of the doubt and say it was on purpose... This rule is (mostly) clear and effective. It solves the main problems of rule 112:2 by rigorously defining restrictions, and also effectively solves the problem of rules ballooning in length, making my job much easier. I can't tell you how it does the latter because that would give away the trap. +3 Style. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (later) Oops! You fooled the Judge. Although the "clever and interesting" consequnces are fine for the next valid rule, they cause horrible things to happen to the rules after that, so I'm giving you -3 Style instead. The huge style bonus will instead go to the player to patch this rule. Whoever does this will probably have to do it in the next valid fantasy rule or it may be impossible to fix. If Jeremy manages to fix his own rule the style points might end up breaking even for him.