From: Alan Riddell (pkpeekee_at_hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Dec 27 2001 - 08:55:10 PST
Round 173 "The Themeless Round" Summary (so far)
====
173:1 VALID Style +1.0 by Karl Low
173:2 VALID Style +1.5 by Stephen Turner
173:3 INVALID Style -2.0 by Ed Murphy
173:4 INVALID Style -1.0 by Karl Low
173:5 INVALID Style -0.5 by Sanjeev Richariya
173:6 VALID Style +0.5 by Jesse
173:7 VALID Style +1.5(?) by James Willson
173:8 VALID Style +1.5 by Glenn Overby
173:9 VALID Style +2.0 by Stephen Turner
====
Member statistics summary (for rules listed above)
====
Karl Low: Style +0.0 Eligible until: 2001-12-22 09:29:27 GMT
Stephen Turner Style +3.5 Eligible until: 2001-12-30 07:04:13 GMT
Ed Murphy Style -2.0 Eligible until: 2001-12-22 23:00:35 GMT
Sanjeev Richariya Style -0.5 Eligible until: 2001-12-23 19:45:32 GMT
Jesse Style +0.5 Eligible until: 2001-12-27 03:23:08 GMT
James Willson Style +1.5 Eligible until: 2001-12-27 11:16:16 GMT
Glenn Overby Style +1.5 Eligible until: 2001-12-28 18:41:02 GMT
====
Posted rules and judgements [occasionally edited by judge]
====
"Karl Low" <gurugreat_at_hotmail.com>
173:1
-----
In keeping with the theme of this round, no subsequent rule shall contain
any word that was in the immediately previous submission to the FRC list.
-----
Rule Date: 2001-12-16 09:29:27 GMT
VALID, Style +1.0
The Rule places no requirements on itself, (as it is not a subsequent rule)
it contains no contradictions and as such is valid. To be honest I had no
idea what to expect from the given theme, but this is in the right area. As
a first rule it is perhaps slightly restrictive IMO, taking its style down
from 1.5 to 1.0
Stephen Turner <sret1_at_ntlworld.com>
173:2
>>>>>
No subsequent rule shall contain any word more than once.
<<<<<
Rule Date: 2001-12-16 13:11:16 GMT
VALID, Style +1.5
I will take it to be the case that the Rule Date stamp, the From and
Reply-to fields and other such areas of the message are not part of the
actual "submission". The Rule then meets the requirements of 173:1 and
contains no contradictions with itself, as such it is valid.
Short simple and an appropriate amount of restriction for this point in the
round. Style +1.5
"Ed Murphy" <emurphy42_at_socal.rr.com>
173:3
-----
No subsequent rule shall contain any word found in a previous valid one.
-----
Rule Date: 2001-12-16 23:00:35 GMT
INVALID, Style -2.0
The previous submission to FRC forum had subject "Subject: Attempt #2 - This
is an intentional submission, but not a rule". Although this might seem
harsh when considering my previous coments, I consider the Subject field of
a message part of the submission. As such the word "rule" appears in the
submission previous to the rule and in the rule itself and as such it is
invalid.
The restriction is harsh for this point in the round and also puts the rule
into a growing theme in this round, which obviously is against the theme of
the round. This together with the posting of the "cheep" submission and the
fact the rule turned out to still be invalid gives the rule a style of -2.0
"Karl Low" <gurugreat_at_hotmail.com>
173:4
-----
Further valid postings will contain colours.
-----
Rule Date: 2001-12-17 07:42:40 GMT
I have judged to be invalid as it contains the word "valid" that was
contained in the message previous to it. Style -1.0 due to being invalid.
Alan "Peekee" Riddell
"sanjeev richariya" <sanjeev_at_richariya.freeserve.co.uk>
173:5
----
Alternate rules shall praise something, as I now laud how useful water is.
----
Rule Date: 2001-12-17 19:45:32 GMT
The rule contains the word "I" as did the previous submission, as such the
rule is invalid as it does not meet the condition of 173:1
Essentiallt I like the use of the word laud apart from that the rule looses
out for being invalid, and being slightly unclear on the fact that it is
supposed to be a rule for this round style -0.5
"Jesse F. W" <jessefw_at_loop.com>
173:6
---
Future regs must include 31 words.
---
Rule Date: 2001-12-20 03:23:08 GMT
The rule meets the requirements of 173:1 & 2, and does not contradict
itself, as such it is valid.
Style, in general good but there have been many rules this round about
restrictions on "words" and I feel that this risks creating a theme. As such
the rule has lost a little style as it falls in that area. Style +0.5
James Willson <jkvw3_at_yahoo.com>
173:7
>>>>>>>>>>
Selected Validity Requirements Follow:
1) Provide restrictiveness
2) Perpetuate themelessness
3) Exist without three lines unless several demonstrate listing purposes
4) Antecede myself xor contain singular colon punctuation
5) Avoid semicolons, dashes, hyphens, asterisks, plus apostrophes
>>>>>>>>>>
Rule Date: 2001-12-20 11:16:16 GMT
[Cannot find actually text of Judgement will take to be valid Style +1.5.]
Glenn Overby II <guardcaptain_at_earthlink.net>
173:8
///
Directive: Additional properly formed submissions utilize only words
exceeding
three letters. Compliance ensures appropriate recreational enhancement.
Ignorance compels judgements regarding invalidity. Subject matter remains
unregulated, harmonizing with seventh proposal, second subpoint.
///
Rule Date: 2001-12-21 18:41:02 GMT
Meets 173:1 & 2 also meets 173:6 as it "INCLUDES" 31 words. Also the
conditions of 173:7 are all met.
Style, all in all reasonable at this point +1.5
Stephen Turner <sret1_at_ntlworld.com>
173:9
>>>>>
Future rules must describe something their authors like, with reasons.
Thus, Committee members might learn more about each other.
Stephen likes (most) classical music. Reasons: emotional power/intensity,
plus good tunes!
<<<<<
Rule Date: 2001-12-23 07:04:13 GMT
Meets 173:1 & 2 and yes I agree on Steve's interpretation that words may be
repeated in seperate rules, but not in any single rule. 31 words. I also
judge that going off in a new unexpected direction is at this point
themeless although it will make it more difficult for future rules to remain
themeless.
Clearly steve's rule does exist without three lines and I take without to
mean as he does in that rules must have less than three lines unless they
list... However IMO for a line to exist on an email considering wordwrap it
must be seperated and not just wrapped round. (If that makes sense)
Style, I actually rather like his new random themeless choice of theme, thus
style +2.0
====
Other round related discussion (unsorted)
====
Now that I re-read it, it's more restrictive than I intended, since it says
"Submission" doesn't that include VALID, INVALID, Judgement Statements,
commentary, and spam?
Yes, I think I would take all of the above to be submissions. Although spam
might be difficult to judge as it may not distributed to all frc members in
a proper manner to be considered a submission, further I feel a submission
to the list has to have some intent to be received as a message to the list.
Steve's notes on validity.
173.2: People seem to be taking this rule to mean that rules may not
repeat
words from other rules. While I am amazed by James and Glenn's verbal
dexterity, that was not my intention. I only meant that words may not
repeat words within themselves, and I hope that the Judge will use this
interpretation!
173:7.2: I'm not really sure what this means in practice. It could be
argued that I am illegally starting a theme here. I would counter that
heading off in a totally new direction is far less themeful than
continuing
the implicit theme of "syntactic restrictions on rules".
173:7.3: I'm assuming that "without" is used here in the older meaning,
i.e. the opposite of "within".
Alan "Peekee" Riddell
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
--
Rule Date: 2001-12-27 16:55:30 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST