Round 87 ended Saturday 13 December. I think our only 14-day-eligibility
round was relatively succesful, with 6 players, 10 rules, and play till past
the first week (in this case first two weeks) by more than one player. That's
not impressive, but it's more than many rounds get these days. Special thanks
to Jeremy who took a large part in making this a success, and got rewarded
with both Wizardship and Judgeship for round 88.

Andre, Judge for round 87.

======================================================================

who?		last valid rule	eligible until		Total Style
Jeremy		87:7		New Judge		+3.0
Murphy		87:6		Ineligible		-1.5
Doug		87:2		Ineligible		+1.0
Others		--		Ineligible		0
Luke Vaughn	--		Ineligible		-2.0
Swann		--		Ineligible		0
Bill		--		Ineligible		+1.0

Rules
87:1  Jeremy	VALID	-0.5
87:2  Doug	VALID	+1.0
87:3  Jeremy	VALID	+1.5
87:4  Luke	INVALID	-2.0
87:5  Swann	INVALID	 0
87:6  Murphy	VALID	+0.5
87:7  Jeremy	VALID	-0.5
87:8  Bill	INVALID	+1.0
87:9  Murphy	VALID	-2.0
87:10 Jeremy	VALID	+2.5

Proposals:
87:A (override) free period while the Judge is away, accepted 2-0
87:B (change)   eligibility period back to 7 days, accepted 2-0

======================================================================

Rule 87:1

> >>>>>>
> 
> The theme for this round is "a new language," which I will shape somewhat
> by suggesting that if a rule in this round contains one or more restrictions 
> it must contain a newly coined term describing a property of one or more of 
> these restrictions (and its definition) to become a part of our "Lexicon of 
> FRCology."
> 
> Condit: a restriction which must be obeyed by a rule only if the rule has a 
>         certain property specified by that restriction.
> 
> >>>>>>

VALIDITY:
Does Jeremy's newly coined term describe a property of his restriction?
Certainly his Rule contains a restriction, and that restriction is a
Condit, but in my opinion its property is 'being a Condit' or 'Conditness',
not 'Condit'. So does 'Condit' 'describe' the property of being a Condit?
It's borderline, but I will allow it. Thus, VALID.

STYLE:
As one can imagine not what I had in mind when suggesting the theme, but
I will not be substracting points for that. What I do substract a bit for
is the defining property for your Condit (containing one or more restrictions):
You make it easier on a type of rules that is generally frowned upon as
unstylish, namely those without restrictions. Style -0.5.

======================================================================

Rule 87:2

I wrote:

----------------------------------------------------------------------

> This rule and all rules after it must contain a Univer, which is a
> restriction that is not a Condit.  All rules must contain the word Condit.
> 
> A rule that obeys the restrictions it imposes on other rules is an Honestabe.

VALIDITY: Honestabe describes a property of the Rule, not of the 
Restriction(s). INVALID.

STYLE: Readily answered my complaints about the past Rule. Made the
description of Condit in Rule 87:1 more than a dead letter. +1 Style.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Looking again I realise that this rule defines Univer as well, which
does describe a property of a restriction, and thus it is Valid after
all. So I hereby change my judgement to VALID, with apologies for any
inconveniences caused.

======================================================================

Rule 87:3

Jeremy D Selengut wrote:
> 
> >>>>>>
> Meta: a restriction which restricts the way in which restrictions may be 
>       made.
> 
> No Condit may contain the word Condit.
> 
> A rule which is not an Honestabe is a Trickydick.
> 
> No Trickydick may contain more than one restriction.
> >>>>>>

VALIDITY: 
It took some thought, but I drew the conclusion that
"No Condit may contain the word Condit." is not a Condit, and thus must
be a Univer. It is a Honestabe, and defines a property of Metaness, so
there are no further problems.

STYLE:
I'm starting to like this round more and more. I don't know why I like
this rule, but I do, and so I give it +1.5.

======================================================================

Rule 87:4

> >>>>>>>>>>>
> 
> All future Non-Univer restrictions must exhibit liarLiarness.
> 
> liarLiar: any property for which the name does not reflect the nature of the
> property thus embodied
> 
> Backdoor: A restriction that avoids the possiblity of violating another 
> restriction through the use of oblique reference.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> ..
> ...
> ....
> .....Oh, BTW, Condit
> 
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

VALIDITY: Your restriction is neither liarLiar nor Backdoor. Thus you
do not describe a property of your restriction(s). INVALID.

STYLE: What does your restriction mean? LiarLiarness is a property
of properties, not one of restrictions, so it is wholly unclear what
it means for a restriction to exhibit it. Style -2

======================================================================

Rule 87:5

My excuses for the delay.

> Steven Swiniarski wrote:
>
> Semiver: A restriction that applies to only half (or less) of the rules
> following it.
>
> Only odd numbered rules may contain a Semiver.
>
> Wuss:  Any Rule that does not contain a Condit.
>
> Only even numbered rules may be Wusses.

VALIDITY: Rule 87:3 was not an even numbered rule, but still a Wuss.
Thus this rule is INVALID.

STYLE: Some substraction for the fact that 'Semiver' is ill-defined -
whether or not some restriction is a Semiver can only be known after all
following rules have been added. It seems that this would include conditional
validities into the round, in a very difficult way (for the judge, that is).
On the other hand, I like the self-reference in 'Only odd numbered rules may 
contain a Semiver'. The rule is also nice and short. Still, I'm not willing
to give more than 0. Zero it is, thus.

======================================================================

Rule 87:6

Ed Murphy wrote:

> [Condit]
> 
>      "All future rules shall contain at least one PostItNote."
> 
> [Definition]
> 
>      "PostItNote:  A Univer that is trivial because it can be derived from the
>       restrictions of rules other than the rule containing it."
> 
> [PostItNote, and thus Univer]
> 
>      "No Trickydick can be valid."
> 
>      Proof:
>      Suppose there were a valid Trickydick (rule R).
>      Rule R can't be 87:1 (an Honestabe), so 87:2 requires it to have a Univer.
>      87:3 says that rule R's Univer is the only restriction rule R can have.
>      To be a Trickydick, rule R must violate its Univer; but its Univer applies
>        to itself, so rule R is invalid.
>      Contradiction, so the initial assumption is impossible.

VALIDITY: It has been argued that this Rule's PostItNote is a Univer. I do
not agree, and think it is a Univer. If it had been a Condit, only restricting
Trickydicks, what restriction does it apply to them? Falsum? It parses better
as a Univer restricting all Rules to not being Trickydicks. VALID.

STYLE: I like logic, which is brought into the round this way. Some minus
for making 87.2's Univer retroactively into a PostItNote, but still enough
for +0.5.

======================================================================

Rule 87:7

Jeremy D Selengut wrote:

> >>>>>>
> Boolor: A restriction composed of two or more parts concatenated by the 
>         boolean OR operator.
> 
> All rules must either be one of the first three rules of this round 
> OR contain a newly coined term relevant to that rule.
> 
> All restrictions which contain the word condit are Univers.
> 
> Hedge: a rule which fulfills the restrictions of a prior rule not yet 
>        Judged at the time of its posting even though its author 
>        has stated that e believes it to be INVALID.
> >>>>>>

VALIDITY: No problem.

STYLE: Both restrictions are Post-It Notes. The second was meant to be,
but the first is as well, because all rules must already contain
a newly coined term describing one of its restrictions (by 87:1 and 87:2), 
which, IMO, also is a newly coined term relevant to the rule. Thus too
little restrictive (not at all, in fact). Your reaction on the current
situation with 'Hedge' is well appreciated, though. -0.5.

======================================================================

Rule 87:8

Heuristics Inc. wrote:
> 
> Nullity: a restriction that refers to no coined terms (such as "Condit").
> Singularity: a restriction that refers to one coined term any number of times.
> Multiplicity: a restriction that refers to more than one different coined term.
> 
> Any valid rule that contains a Multiplicity may not contain a Nullity.
> (they cancel each other out, and invalidate the rule.)
> Furthermore, if a valid rule contains a Singularity, it must also have
> another restriction.  (Singularities can't exist by themselves.)
> 
> A rule may not contain both a Trickydick and an Honestabe and remain valid.
> (my PostItNote)
> ---------------
> PS. my breakdown: Rule 1: N, 2: MS, 3: SS, 4,5 invalid, 6: SS, 7: NS, 8: MS.
> -bill

VALIDITY: Trickydicks and Honestabes are types of rules. What does it mean
for a rule to 'contain' a Trickydick or Honestabe? I'd say that it means that
some part of the rule can be read as a rule on its own which is a Trickydick
or an Honestabe. This means that:
1. This rule does clearly not contain a PostItNote - rules can contain
   a Trickydick, as long as it is true that they are not such themselves.
2. Rule 2 contained a Trickydick ('This rule and all rules after it must
   contain a Univer, which is a restriction that is not a Condit.') and an
   Honestabe ('All rules must contain the word Condit.')
Thus, this rule is INVALID.

STYLE: The property you found (as being a property of all past rules) is nice.
Nice length - not too long, not trivial either. The word Condit is included
in a natural way. +1.

======================================================================

Rule 87:9

Ed Murphy wrote:

> All rules must be the first rule or contain the word "Condit".
> 
> This rule and all future rules must contain at least one Revelation, which
> is a restriction that is not a PostItNote.

VALIDITY: No problem. Would have been VALID through Timeout anyway.
STYLE: Lame PostItNote, unoriginal Revelation. -2 Style.

======================================================================

Rule 87:10

Jeremy D Selengut wrote:

> >>>>>>
> 
> PostItNotes in rules henceforth may not be considered to cause that rule
> to fulfill restrictions other than those requiring PostItNotes.
> 
> No rule may contain a restriction which causes the sole Revelation of a 
> valid rule which is required to have one to become deducible unless that 
> Revelation is a Condit.
> 
> Hyper: A restriction which alters the way in which restrictions may be
>        fulfilled.
> 
> Heroic: A rule which is posted prior to the Judgement of the previously
>         posted rule.
> 
> Heroic rules may specify a single restriction found in the previously
> posted rule and then ignore that restriction with impunity.
> 
> All rules must capitalize all coined terms except for "condit" which need
> not be.
> 
> >>>>>>
> 
> Checklist:
> 87:1.1 contains a new term
>    2.1 contains a univer
>    2.2 contains the word condit
>    3.1 the condits do not contain the word condit (Para 1,5)
>    3.2 not a trickydick (see below)
>    6.1 contains a postitnote; para #2.  Proof:
>            all rules after #8 must have a Revelation
>            a Revelation is not a PostItNote
>            a Univer may become a PostitNote by the action of a future
>                restriction which causes it to become deducible (note that
>                the def'n of PostItNote does not require the deducibility
>                to be restricted to prior restrictions)
>            if a rule #M were to cause the sole revelation of a rule #N >#8
>                and <#M to no longer be a Revelation a conflict arises.
>            since rule #N is already VALID, rule #M must be INVALID.
>    6.2 not a trickydick (see below)
>    7.1 contains a new term
>    7.2 the restrictions containing the word condit are univers (Para 2,6)
>    9.1 contains the word condit
>    9.2 contains revelations (Para 1,5,6)
>   10.1 all of the above except 87:6.1 are fulfilled outside of Para 2.
>   10.2 does not cause Para #6 (the only non-condit revelation after 87:8) to
>        become deducible.
>   10.3 does not invoke the Heroic privilege.
>   10:4 capitalizes all coined terms required to be so.

VALIDITY: What can I add to such an Analysis, except saying 'VALID'?

STYLE: Original rule, with a nice property ('Hyper'). Furthermore some
retroactive bonus style points for:
1. Starting the round in a way that made it interesting
2. General activity

Together I think I should give this +2.5.

======================================================================

Temporary RO Override 87:A by Andre.
FOR: Andre, Murphy
AGAINST: none

At the moment the voting period of this proposal has ended, a Free Period
will start.

During the Free Period the following exceptions to the Regular Ordinances
are in force:
- All Players who were eligible at the start of the Free Period are eligible
- The second paragraph of rule 8 (Rules are valid through timeout) is not
  in force.

The Free Period ends at the time the first of the following happens:
- The Judge announces it is over, or he publishes a judgement on a fantasy
  rule.
- The Free Period has lasted for seven days.
- Another player announces that he/she becomes the Judge. In this case
  that person becomes the Judge in the same way as if he/she had been
  appointed by a resigning Judge, and had consented to such an appointment.

Furthermore, all rules posted before the beginning of the Free Period make
the poster eligible for a period which is as much longer as the period given
in rule 4 as the Free Period has lasted, while all rules posted during the
Free Period count towards eligibility as if they were posted immediately
after the end of the Free Period, although still in the same chronological
order.

======================================================================

RO Change 87:B by Anton G. Cox
FOR: Anton, Dan Knapp
AGAINST: none

 Since it seems to be open season on the ROs at the moment, I thought I would
take the opportunity to formally propose that RO 4 should read:

4. Eligibility to play. Each valid fantasy rule makes its author eligible
   to play. This eligibility period lasts for seven (7) days from the
   time of the rule's posting minus one (1) day for each invalid fantasy
   rule posted by the same person after the valid fantasy rule.

======================================================================