From: Factitious (x40_at_pacbell.net)
Date: Wed Oct 17 2001 - 20:59:44 PDT
I meant to post an update yesterday, but I didn't. The round is now
over, with a total of 5 rules submitted. We have a new Judge and a
not-so-new Wizard.
Round 170, "Alliteration"
The round opened on 2001-10-08, at 04:40:52 GMT.
The Judge was Factitious.
The Wizard was Aron Wall.
Current eligibility:
Eligible:
Ed Murphy, +1
Ineligible, in order of losing eligiblity:
Jesse F. W., +1
The Wizard, +2
Glenn Overby II, +1.5
Mark Nau, +1.2
Ed Murphy is the winner, and will be the Judge of round 171. Aron
retains the Wizardship, with +2 style points.
Rules and judgements:
170:1
>>>>>
Wizard with (stylish?) wisdom will want words with same starting sounds
with some second word within wordage, with same size starting sound set
with Wizard's wordage 170:1 [say "one seventy, one"]. Without such,
wordage sick, without strength.
-Wizard
>>>>>
Rule Date: 2001-10-08 04:40:52 GMT
Validity: VALID.
Style: Superb sound similarities: +2. Second sentence sent me into
snickering: +1. Constraint confusingly not clear (Word within wordage?
What?): -1 Total: Two.
170:2
Laws with lasting wisdom let willing lawmakers legislate with less
words. Let
lexemes lessen. Wizardly words wanted.
Glenn
--
Rule Date: 2001-10-08 07:10:07 GMT
Validity: VALID.
Style: Clear: +1. Concise, and compels compactness: +1. Can cause a
cramp in
capacity of coming codification: -0.5
Total: Three/two = +1.5
170:3
------------------
Let unwilling lawmakers undermine lexical length limitation. Unless last
legislation unwilling, law length unlimited.
------------------
Mark Nau
Rule Date: 2001-10-09 02:40:03 GMT (Somewhat uncertain)
Validity:
An attempt to undermine 170:2? Well, as long as they're unwilling
lawmakers, and of course, "let them legislate" was pretty permissive
language. VALID.
Style:
Maintains brevity, even after demonstrating a way to avoid it:
+1.2. Nice interpretation of 170:2 : +1. Doesn't provide much of a
restriction, though: -1. Total: +1.2
As an aside, I didn't see a rule date on the bottom of this rule.
Did anyone else receive the official date? If it can't be determined,
is there an accepted precedent for calculating elgibility?
---Rule 170:4----
Writer of rules wonders why wide-ranging wordage has wound
down. Now, this new rule nabs neophytes; no to a nap. Most parts
of each passage must be prefixed with the postmost letter of the
preceding passage. Enter, enterprising enemies...
----End of Rule----
Jesse W
--
Rule Date: 2001-10-12 06:05:12 GMT
Validity: INVALID. 6 out of 16 words in the third sentence start with
the letter "p". This is not quite a
majority. There is support for the idea that this rule is meant to
apply to itself in the second sentence. Jesse can
indeed be considered a neophyte (having joined at about the time I did),
and has in fact been nabbed by this rule.
Also, the rule was clearly intended to meet it's own restriction.
Style: +1 for going against the assumed custom of complete
alliteration. -1 for not meeting the fine standards of
complete alliteration that we've seen in other rules. +1 for a good
restriction. Total: +1
170:5
Ed Murphy wrote:
On Monday, October 8, I submitted the following 170:4
----------
Use words.
----------
but it was throttled by the mailing list software because the message
was
unusually short. I figured Arnt would manually release it soonish,
but...
I am attaching the original message. Arnt, can you confirm that it was
received and throttled as I have described above?
--
Ed Murphy
Judgment:
If this message is to be considered to have been submitted on Monday,
then it
is VALID by timeout and I do not need to decide on judgement. However,
was
it really "a public posting in the official committee forum"? Arnt was
able
to confirm receipt, but it was not formally posted in a way visible to
all.
The rejection by the forum was clearly not Ed's fault, but I am still
going
to consider it to have been submitted on Friday, and to be the fifth
rule
submitted in this round.
Validity: VALID. "Words" is indeed a wizardly word, and this satisfies
170:2
even if Ed is a willing lawmaker.
Style: +1 for being brief, succinct, and to the point. -1 for not
having
much of a restriction. +1 for allowing me to take a stand on the
definition
of "public posting". Total: +1.
--
Rule Date: 2001-10-18 03:59:46 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST