From: Jeremy D. Selengut (selengut_at_nih.gov)
Date: Tue Aug 21 2001 - 08:20:58 PDT
Theme: Biotechnology Eligibility: David Lerner Aug 27, 16:39:36 +0.5 Kitt Bartlett Aug 27, 14:18:55 +0.5 > All others < Aug 27, 14:18:55 Karl Low Aug 26, 14:18:55 +1.0 Current Co-Wizard Jesse F. W. Aug 26, 14:18:55 +1.0 Current Co-Wizard David Glasser Aug 26, 14:18:55 +0.5 Rule summary: 167:1 Kitt Bartlett Aug 20, 14:18:55 VALID +0.5 Words begin w/ACTG 167:2 Karl Low Aug 20, 16:13:00 INVALID +1.0 Inconsistent w/167:1 167:3 David Lerner Aug 20, 16:39:36 VALID +0.5 No restriction 167:4 Jesse F. W. Aug 20, 16:55:17 INVALID +1.0 Inconsistent w/self 167:5 David Glasser Aug 21, 03:07:23 INVALID +0.5 Inconsistent w/self Rules & Judgements: ******* 167:1 - VALID Christopher Bartlett <bridgeweaver_at_mediaone.net> > As adenine, thymine, Cytosine and Guanine are the sole building blocks of > DNA, all rules must contain words that begin with the letters 'a', 't', > 'c', and 'g'. Judgement: VALID Style: A rather uninspired restriction, I'm afraid, but not overly problematic as befits a rule early in the round. Call me a stickler, but in real life anyway, Adenine, etc. are not the sole building blocks of DNA, just the nucleotide bases. DNA also includes the deoxyribose sugars and the phosphate groups. Including a first-timer bonus, I award +0.5. ******* 167:2 - INVALID Karl wrote: Begin 167.2 ---- Goodness, can a word begin with more than one letter? No matter, since this is FRC, we know that the DNA of a rule is actually the individual words in it. Now which words qualify as adenine, thymine, Cytosine and Guanine, I have no clue. Still, it's useful to remember that every FRC rule will contain a cluster of at least five of the DNA, in the same order, as the previous rule. ----- Judgement: Rule 1 says: adenine, thymine, Cytosine and Guanine are the sole building blocks of DNA Rule 2 says: the DNA of a rule is actually the individual words in it Is there a way to reconcile these? I wish the words "sole" and "actually" were not there, but they are. What does it mean for something to "actually" be something else - it could be that the DNA is only apparently made of A T C and G, in fact, it is not, its made of the words of a rule. Imagine this: Physicist #1: The sole building blocks of matter are subatomic particles Physicist #2: Matter is actually the atoms composing it Thus, one POSSIBLE interpretation of these two rules is that the DNA of a rule is the words in it and those words, in turn, are composed at some level of the four bases, A T C and G. Having found one possible and, I deem, reasonable interpretation I will not judge this rule INVALID on this count. I will stress that having found one interpretation does not rule out a possibly infinite suite of other reasonable interpretations, all of which are still in play until such time as a future rule narrows things down. Players need not hew to the one interpretation I have outlined if they can think of another. The Judge, of course, unless overruled by vote, is the arbiter of reasonableness, but I will remind players also that an alternative interpretation need not be _more_ reasonable than the one I outlined, just not unreasonable. I'm spelling this out for the benefit of the new players so that they understand my philosophy of judging. Having said all of this, I will nonetheless judge the rule INVALID for one of the oldest and most tedious reasons in the FRC. This rule requires ALL rules to contain something found in the previous rule. As there is no rule previous to the first rule, the first rule is not in compliance with this restriction. If the rule had specifically exempted the first rule or said "from now on", or "in the future" or some other such thing it would have been valid. So sorry. Style: For making my head spin with the repercussions of the DNA for the word Adenine is the word Adenine which is composed of, most likely, Adenine... +1.0 ******* 167:3 - VALID David wrote: The First One In |It's useful to remember that| many Companies, universities, And Governments have rushed into Biotechnology, before They've even explored the potential risks and dangers. In accordance, we do not need Rule 167:1 to start creating rules. Judgement: A truism. However, you'd better not ignore 167:1, because the Judge does need to pay attention to it when judging your rules. Which I have. No problems here. Style: On theme, but where's the beef (GM, or otherwise), there's nothing here to restrict other rules. Except for the fact that it is a capital R, Rule, this is not a rule, it is a comment... Including the new player bonus, I award +0.5 ******* 167:4 - INVALID Begin rule ------------------------------ The last word of each sentence in each new rule must be the same as the first word in the sentence, except one letter may be mutated, by removal or change; e. g. the becomes toe. ;-) Lock up all hope of adding letters, for that is not true mutation, if you look. On your honor, words must be real words, and repetition is a no-no. But hyphenation is alright, so stop the with the tut, tut. ------------------------------ End rule Jesse F. Weinstein; did I hear something, what? Judgement: INVALID, In the second to last sentence, the mutation ON to NO-NO (or NO) is not allowed by this rule (note that the rule restricts "each new rule" and this is a new rule). The only mutations allowed are removal of one letter or change of one letter where change is exemplified by the transformation of THE to TOE. Style: Good idea, unfortunate execution. With the new player bonus, +1.0 ******* 167:5 - INVALID 167:4 >>> Rules from now on must contain a phrase of at least six words, indicated with quotes, that must be used in the following Rule in order for it to be valid; they will serve to pass on genetic information, something that can't be done by mules. >>> --David Glasser Judgement: INVALID. Does not follow its own restriction. Style: Is a mule an INVALID rule? An interesting concept to build on, perhaps? Otherwise, not much excitement here. With the new player bonus, +1.0. -- Rule Date: 2001-08-21 15:22:10 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST