From: Richard S. Holmes (rsholmes_at_MailBox.Syr.Edu)
Date: Mon Jun 10 2002 - 11:58:26 PDT
Round 185 began 2002-05-28 19:21:24 GMT.
Judge: Rich Holmes
Wizard: Jonathan Van Matre
Theme: Slander and Libel!
The round ended at 2002-06-08 16:21:34 GMT with Joshua the winner.
Joshua is the Judge, and Ed Murphy the Wizard, for round 186.
============================================================
Eligibility and Style:
Joshua expired 2002-06-08 18:00:07 GMT -0.5
Glenn & Chrystal Overby expired 2002-06-08 16:21:34 GMT -0.7
Alan Riddell expired 2002-06-07 22:06:53 GMT -0.2
James Willson expired 2002-06-06 17:18:29 GMT +1.0
Jonathan Van Matre expired 2002-06-06 15:18:16 GMT +0.7
All others expired 2002-06-04 19:21:24 GMT 0.0
Jesse Welton expired 2002-06-03 19:21:24 GMT +1.9
Aron Wall expired 2002-06-03 19:21:24 GMT +1.4
Ed Murphy expired 2002-06-03 19:21:24 GMT +2.0
============================================================
Rule judgements:
----------- JUDGEMENTS -----------
Initial: Final:
185.1 Jonathan Van Matre VALID, +2.7 INVALID, +1.7
185.2 Jesse Welton INVALID, +1.9 INVALID, +1.9
185.3 Joshua VALID, +1.5 VALID, +1.5
185.4 Jonathan Van Matre UNSUCCESSFUL, -1.0 VALID, -1.0
185.5 Aron Wall INVALID, +1.4 INVALID, +1.4
185.6 James Willson VALID, +1.0 VALID, +1.0
185.7 Alan Riddell VALID, -0.2 VALID, -0.2
185.8 Glenn & Chrystal Overby VALID, -0.7 VALID, -0.7
*185.9 Ed Murphy INVALID, +2.0 INVALID, +2.0
185.10 Joshua VALID, 0.0 VALID, 0.0
185.11 Jesse Welton (not eligible)
185.12 Joshua INVALID, -2.0 INVALID, -2.0
* Sucky rule (per 185:E)
Proposal results:
185:A PASSED
185:B PASSED
185:C WITHDRAWN
185:D PASSED
185:E PASSED
============================================================
Rules
============================================================
From: rsholmes_at_mailbox.syr.edu (Richard S. Holmes)
Subject: Re: Rule 185:1: VALID, +2.7
To: "Fantasy Rules Committee" <frc_at_trolltech.com>
Date: 28 May 2002 16:02:01 -0400
"Jonathan Van Matre" <JVanMatre_at_oslp.com> writes:
> It has come to the attention of the FRC Oversight Committee that recent
> rounds have contained an inordinate number of errors, ranging from the
> merely grammatical to errors in judgement. For example, use of the
> non-word "proceedure" and an ill-advised pun on the name of the current
> pontiff and an obscure Texas Libertarian politician were both committed
> in the previous round. Therefore, all FRC members are enjoined to take
> corrective action whenever they discern an error committed by another
> member of the FRC.
>
> However, FRC members are advised to remain cautious of committing
> slander, libel, or defamation. Please bear in mind the three criteria
> for defamation:
>
> 1) The statement must be untrue,
> 2) The statement must be communicated to a third party, and
> 3) The statement must be demonstrably harmful to the reputation of the
> victim.
>
> For the purposes of this round, a player's total accumulated Style
> points in the round will be considered a reflection of eir Reputation.
>
> Players may submit Rules claiming damages for defamation. The Judge
> will deem such rules VALID if they meet the criteria set out above, and
> any rule found guilty of defamation will have its ruling changed to
> INVALID as punishment. At the Judge's discretion, Style/Reputation
> points may also be adjusted as a further penalty or compensation for
> harm.
>
> --
> Rule Date: 2002-05-28 19:21:24 GMT
JUDGEMENT: Immediately we are thrown into a thorny issue. The last
paragraph of this rule allows and requires the Judge under certain
circumstances to declare a rule that is consistent with itself,
previously posted valid fantasy rules, and the regular ordinances
INVALID -- an action which at first seems to be forbidden by RO6:
If a fantasy rule is inconsistent with itself, previously posted
valid fantasy rules, or the regular ordinances, then the Judge
shall declare that rule invalid or unsuccesful, otherwise e shall
declare it valid.
But on more careful thought, this is not the correct analysis. 185:1
does not permit or require such contrary-to-RO6 judgements to be made
*initially*; it merely requires judgements made according to RO6 to be
*changed*. And as I read RO6, it regulates only the Judge's immediate
judgement of a rule; it does *not* forbid that judgement to be changed
at a later date based on different criteria. (If RO6 had read
"... then that rule shall be considered invalid or unsuccessful,
otherwise it shall be considered valid", that would be a different
story. But if I declare a rule VALID and then change that ruling to
INVALID, for arbitrary reasons, that does not alter the fact that I
have, in accordance with RO6, declared that rule VALID.) Nor do any
of the other ROs constrain the criteria for a change of judgement.
So then the only remaining question is, do the ROs allow a judge to
change eir judgement at all? Of course if 185:D passes then such
authority will exist; but 185:D has not passed, and 185.1 must be
judged on the basis of the ROs and override proposals in effect at the
time of its submission. (Jonathan seems to want it judged under the
assumption that 185:D will pass, but I do not believe that would be
legal.)
The proposer emself, as well as another player, have argued that the
ROs implictly forbid such judgement changes; I have already responded
to those arguments, explaining why I do not find them convincing.
Furthermore, I note that judges have claimed and used the authority to
change judgements and style awards in the past.
I therefore find this rule VALID.
STYLE: Not only does this proposal have great potential to establish
the suggested theme, it also scores big (if unintentionally) for
exploiting a hitherto unnoticed RO loophole. It would have scored a
+3.0 had it not been a little on the long side.
--
- Rich Holmes
Syracuse, NY
--
Rule Date: 2002-05-28 20:02:12 GMT
============================================================
From: rsholmes_at_mailbox.syr.edu (Richard S. Holmes)
Subject: Re: Rule 185:1: INVALID, +1.7
To: "Fantasy Rules Committee" <frc_at_trolltech.com>
Date: 30 May 2002 10:31:08 -0400
rsholmes_at_mailbox.syr.edu (Richard S. Holmes) writes:
[Text of rule omitted]
The Judge has belatedly realized that in his concern over whether the
second half of the second sentence of the last paragraph is or is not
consistent with the ROs, he has overlooked a problem with the first
half. Namely: This rule attempts to redefine the criteria by which a
rule is *initially* declared VALID, and that *is* inconsistent with
RO6.
I therefore change my judgement; 185.1 is INVALID, and loses a style
point for its invalidity.
The Judge, fortunately, is not subject to style points.
--
- Rich Holmes
Syracuse, NY
--
Rule Date: 2002-05-30 14:31:28 GMT
============================================================
From: rsholmes_at_mailbox.syr.edu (Richard S. Holmes)
Subject: Re: 185:2: INVALID, +1.9
To: Jesse Welton <jwelton_at_pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu>
Cc: frc_at_trolltech.com (Fantasy Rules Committee)
Date: 30 May 2002 10:46:10 -0400
Jesse Welton <jwelton_at_pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu> writes:
> --- begin 185:2 ---
>
> Nothing in this rule is true. This is a stupid rule, and obviously
> INVALID. Blatant self-inconsitancy merits low style; therefore this
> entire untrue rule is defamatory to its author, me. Under rule 185:1,
> the Judge must therefore rule it VALID. I further request a style
> award in the amount of 3.0 points in compensation, to be deducted from
> the style of the offending rule's author.
>
> --- end ---
>
> --
> Rule Date: 2002-05-30 14:18:05 GMT
JUDGEMENT: This rule correctly asserts that it is INVALID, as would
any rule be that makes the claim "Nothing in this rule is true."
STYLE: Blatant self-inconsistency merits high style, sometimes.
(+2.0) As does knowing how to spell "self-inconsistency". (-0.1)
--
- Rich Holmes
Syracuse, NY
--
Rule Date: 2002-05-30 14:46:24 GMT
============================================================
From: rsholmes_at_mailbox.syr.edu (Richard S. Holmes)
Subject: Re: Rule 185:3: VALID, +1.5
To: Fantasy Rules Committee <frc_at_trolltech.com>
Date: 30 May 2002 11:50:41 -0400
Joshua <j3b4_at_yahoo.com> writes:
> In an open hearted attempt to neutralize some of the bad feeling that
> may be creeping into this round I suggest that we learn from the
> excellent examples provided to us by the communist administration in
> China who invented the practice of "self-criticism". By offering
> self-criticism we reveal our honest intentions and fair spirit before
> tearing mercilessly into the flesh of our esteemed comrades.
>
> To provide a shining example I will admit that even I have a fault. It
> is hard for me to admit but I am a bit of a perfectionist. You may not
> think that's a serious fault - I thank you for your generosity if you
> don't - but I feel it can sometimes cause others to look bad when
> compared to me. For this reason I am ashamed and deeply request your
> forgiveness and adoration.
>
> Now, having completed my self-criticism I am free to give a frank
> assessment of my fellow committee members. From what I can see they
> are incompetent and fractious. If their slovenly behavior continues we
> may all be heading for irredeemable disaster. I can only hope that
> something is done to make the INVALID rule writers feel a deep and last
> shame for their actions.
>
> Anyone who has written an INVALID rule in this round must make a
> self-criticism and apologize to the committee in their next rule.
>
> --
> Rule Date: 2002-05-30 15:17:26 GMT
JUDGEMENT: No problems.
STYLE: A bit wordy, and only a tenuous connection to the suggested
theme, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. +1.5
--
- Rich Holmes
Syracuse, NY
--
Rule Date: 2002-05-30 15:50:56 GMT
============================================================
From: rsholmes_at_mailbox.syr.edu (Richard S. Holmes)
Subject: Re: 185:4 (renumbered from 185:3): UNSUCCESSFUL, -1.0
To: "Jonathan Van Matre" <JVanMatre_at_oslp.com>
Cc: "Fantasy Rules Committee" <frc_at_trolltech.com>
Date: 30 May 2002 11:55:27 -0400
"Jonathan Van Matre" <JVanMatre_at_oslp.com> writes:
> It has again come to the attention of the FRC Oversight Committee that
> recent rounds have contained an inordinate number of errors, ranging
> from the merely grammatical to errors in judgement. For example, use of
> the non-word "proceedure" and an ill-advised pun on the name of the
> current pontiff and an obscure Texas Libertarian politician were both
> committed in the previous round. Therefore, all FRC members are
> enjoined to take corrective action whenever they discern an error
> committed by another member of the FRC.
>
> However, FRC members are advised to remain cautious of committing
> slander, libel, or defamation. Please bear in mind the three criteria
> for defamation:
>
> 1) The statement must be untrue,
> 2) The statement must be communicated to a third party, and
> 3) The statement must be demonstrably harmful to the reputation of the
> victim.
>
> For the purposes of this round, a player's total accumulated Style
> points in the round will be considered a reflection of eir Reputation.
>
> Players may submit Rules claiming damages for defamation. Any rule
> found guilty of defamation (as a result of the rule claiming defamation
> being ruled VALID) will have its ruling changed to INVALID as
> punishment. At the Judge's discretion, Style/Reputation points may also
> be adjusted as a further penalty or compensation for harm from
> defamation.
>
> --
> Rule Date: 2002-05-30 15:18:16 GMT
JUDGEMENT: Inconsistent with (the other, prior) 185.3, submitted
shortly before and presumably unknown to Jonathan, therefore
UNSUCCESSFUL.
STYLE: Resubmission. -1.0.
--
- Rich Holmes
Syracuse, NY
--
Rule Date: 2002-05-30 15:55:49 GMT
============================================================
From: rsholmes_at_mailbox.syr.edu (Richard S. Holmes)
Subject: Re: 185:4 (renumbered from 185:3): Rejudged VALID, -1.0
To: "Fantasy Rules Committee" <frc_at_trolltech.com>
Date: 31 May 2002 14:50:22 -0400
rsholmes_at_mailbox.syr.edu (Richard S. Holmes) writes:
[Text of rule omitted]
I change my judgement to VALID, but with no change to the style
points.
--
- Rich Holmes
Syracuse, NY
--
Rule Date: 2002-05-31 18:50:30 GMT
============================================================
From: rsholmes_at_mailbox.syr.edu (Richard S. Holmes)
Subject: Re: 185:5: INVALID, +1.4
To: Aron Wall <aron_at_wall.org>
Cc: frc_at_trolltech.com
Date: 30 May 2002 14:12:04 -0400
Aron Wall <aron_at_wall.org> writes:
> >>>>>
> It grows increasingly clear that the FRC consists almost entirely of
> extremely depraved individuals. They are only concerned with the
> success of themselves and their own rules, and are perfectly caspable of
> putting forward the most blatantly illogical and absurd arguments that
> their own rules should be VALID with high style--but for other people's
> rules, they do just the opposite. For the first 75 rounds since I
> joined, I had high hopes that they would shape up, that they would be
> able to rule themselves in a peaceful, democratic fashion. But now I
> realize that human nature is completely corrupt, unable to provide
> happiness for themselves or others. What? Do you think that these
> bastions of wickedness are happy? Why then do they continue to fight
> for honor in future rounds no matter how much they have recieved in
> previous rounds? It is an inherantly futile effort. Everyone loses,
> even the winners. If the masses are completely corrupt, only an
> absolute ruling power can keep them in line. The Leviathan. The Judge.
>
> However, it has come to my attention that the Judge does not yet have
> absolute power. While there is a limit to what one rule can do, there
> is a drastic remedy that this rule shall take that will bring the Judge
> much greater power. I feel confident that the Judge, in light of my
> carefully reasoned treatise on human nature, will accept this increased
> power.
>
> Future rules shall all be INVALID due to inconsistancy with this rule.
> That is, they should all be declared INVALID the first time. The Judge
> is perfectly able to make them VALID by a reruling, and presumably shall
> for any rules that he likes. But no more of this nonsense about
> consistency automatically earning a place among the ruleset. Forget
> about consistancy. All that matters is whether the (nearly)
> omnicompetent Judge does or does not like your rule.
> >>>>>>
>
> --
> Rule Date: 2002-05-30 16:59:53 GMT
JUDGEMENT: This rule asserts that all future rules will be
inconsistent with this rule (herein referred to as the "inconsistency
assertion"). Suppose rule 185:n is consistent with all *other*
provisions of 185:5 (and all other rules and ROs). Then 185:n is
VALID if it is consistent with the inconsistency assertion. But then
according to the inconsistency assertion, 185:n is INVALID. On the
other hand, 185:n is INVALID if it is inconsistent with the
inconsistency assertion, i.e., if it is VALID. Hence this rule would
require the Judge to find 185:n simultaneously VALID and INVALID,
contrary to the ROs. Therefore 185:5 is INVALID.
A second problem with this rule is its own self-inconsistency: It
asserts that future rules must be declared INVALID due to
inconsistency with 185:5, and then goes on to say consistency does not
matter.
STYLE: The rule starts well before bogging down in its own paradoxes.
Then there's the matter of spelling. +1.4.
--
- Rich Holmes
Syracuse, NY
--
Rule Date: 2002-05-30 18:12:33 GMT
============================================================
From: rsholmes_at_mailbox.syr.edu (Richard S. Holmes)
Subject: Re: 185:6: VALID, +1.0
To: frc <frc_at_trolltech.com>
Date: 30 May 2002 14:18:06 -0400
James Willson <jkvw3_at_yahoo.com> writes:
> 185:6
> >>>>>>>>>>
>
> Since the judge is an unsufferable twit,we will tell the judge what rules he
> does and does not like.
>
> The judge likes all rules which are consistent with previous valid rules
> which are not 185:5, but which are not consistent with 185:5.
>
> The judge does not like any other rule.
> >>>>>>>>>>
>
> --
> Rule Date: 2002-05-30 17:18:29 GMT
JUDGEMENT: No problems. Given the invalidity of 185:5, the question
of whether the Judge likes a rule or not has no specific effect on
play, so the constraint is legal but moot.
STYLE: Well... barely on theme, and no restriction on future rules.
But at least it's concise. +1.0.
--
- Rich Holmes
Syracuse, NY
--
Rule Date: 2002-05-30 18:18:24 GMT
============================================================
From: rsholmes_at_mailbox.syr.edu (Richard S. Holmes)
Subject: Re: 185:7: VALID, -0.2
To: "frc" <frc_at_trolltech.com>
Date: 01 Jun 2002 17:53:01 -0400
"Alan Riddell" <peekee_at_blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
> We need more rules, who cares if they are valid or not... FRC members who
> have not posted a rule this round (by the time I have posted this) are
> clearly Far to Righteous and Conceited to post rules. They worry to much
> about their "style"... Pah! WHO CARES ABOUT STYLE?????? As such any future
> rule they do post can only be VALID if the style points awarded for that
> rule are negative.
>
> --
> Rule Date: 2002-05-31 22:06:53 GMT
JUDGEMENT: No problems. We still have only one rule that restricts
other rules, and its restriction does not apply here.
STYLE: "by the time I have posted this" is ambiguous; was this rule
posted by the time it was posted? We will assume it was not;
therefore in order to judge it VALID (as I must) it must have negative
style. The only style complaint I can come up with, though, is the
multiple misuse of "to" instead of "too", for which one can hardly
dock more than 0.2 points. Nice attempt at defamation, too, though
proving it false will be difficult.
--
- Rich Holmes
Syracuse, NY
--
Rule Date: 2002-06-01 21:53:14 GMT
============================================================
From: rsholmes_at_mailbox.syr.edu (Richard S. Holmes)
Subject: Re: 185:8: VALID, -0.7
To: Glenn & Chrystal Overby <guardcaptain_at_earthlink.net>
Cc: FRC List <frc_at_trolltech.com>
Date: 01 Jun 2002 22:29:45 -0400
Glenn & Chrystal Overby <guardcaptain_at_earthlink.net> writes:
> <rule>
> My colleague is right. I am indeed Righteous and Conceited. However, his call is
> just...if not stylish...so I shall also post a Rule.
>
> But I would first point out that the reference in Rule 185:1 to an obscure Texas
> Libertarian politician borders on defaming the Congressman in question. The
> Honorable Ron Paul was elected as a Republican member of Congress, not a
> Libertarian. I am certain that in Republican circles calling the honorable member a
> Libertarian is injurious to his reputation. :)
>
> I disagree with my un-Righteous and non-Conceited Modest Predecessor about
> style. EVERYTHING is a matter of style.
> (See http://home.earthlink.net/~guardcaptain/Style.html)
> Committee members should get off their bums and more aggressively judge style.
> Therefore, any Rule may be declared Sucky by the Committee's passing a Proposal
> to that effect. If a Rule is declared Sucky, it must be declared INVALID by the Judge,
> as we can't afford Sucky Rules when we also have sleepy members.
> </rule>
>
> Glenn E. Overby II
> Tilton, Illinois, USA
>
> --
> Rule Date: 2002-06-01 16:21:34 GMT
>
JUDGEMENT: No problems.
STYLE: Of course the style must be negative. That's hardly difficult,
however. Lines over 80 characters, pseudo-HTML, a smiley emoticon
ferheavensake -- I'd say that's a solid 0.7 points worth of penalty!
And not a hint of defamation as far as I can see. My fellow committee
members, of course, may see further than I...
--
- Rich Holmes
Syracuse, NY
--
Rule Date: 2002-06-02 02:30:06 GMT
============================================================
From: rsholmes_at_mailbox.syr.edu (Richard S. Holmes)
Subject: Re: 185:9: INVALID, +2.0
To: "FRC" <frc_at_trolltech.com>
Date: 01 Jun 2002 22:53:03 -0400
"Ed Murphy" <emurphy42_at_socal.rr.com> writes:
> You want un-Stylish? Huh? Do ya?
>
> ALL FUTURE RULES ARE INVALID.
>
> Now *that's* un-Stylish.
>
> What's that? You think you can weasel out of it, because this rule Sucks?
>
> Well, I think your Suckiness rule is invalid. So there. Nyah.
>
> I shall now post a number so large that it is a waste of your bandwidth
> to download it.
>
> 82354248925605439650661114552448560573825362590186537006551072242916564511567665
> 82625123915633856756755241812005483220460125642537944167401738750069922507110434
> 66694684952026678290361464832087156299428120453598438337417578216412048453634628
> 94316314898236603656326318643020842713491449553796540703203047165083249893747233
> 29772359581723741287603929521165174552690432459941447684642762458245268820105673
> 33660086538546703375145564338447298457875860456760102029770694596969294392530805
> 28328141846779243476769874743824247749311106266911941496976208273430315031627964
> 02747524140096214563432796818596553046359236198986113359252026406244882102347974
> 14087315786842847734072215404965556209012135350319092539178831640733774328570189
> 46538894143628681776296125043316596386283539822922377051190282889967420304027617
> 57802006945979355250393895304663261798007044799132140943043081434666616518075833
> 81184147894801808328035938534315103723528886987109305300931776267851968462232673
> 35939586019774915430780349063236522718197462131346798641345598780498302364835050
> 17396119265077944226219110011559450304675624015849070536364158188909497742966397
> 99415347895880767210082031772374394214890076988148013158637631546689238244213044
> 91121531650762795912294977700820789381801287535142967621643217541948651979006541
> 48171546137517317628061521138513060296934997989216978973191039218056605897365712
> 00525641371915947294994592609998898051729501627541729657312772406939467733473598
> 67591140912585556394900850100620556827416724110837332514105640339043755264363888
> 86617298562896846120963130483635649608935116019845494214191028718676950420704350
> 54305274676582080439590838610833252501967189696025479513344207333255200287320749
> 77096444657225786070605726383446777352578159028869713993122259660857823668965413
> 11424466658589282603369308057052997814863489764833936388963466138615915433081507
> 98102113733442539914265538159807721430779554349497046096655728817209130405003012
> 61332553618152607832806254966931190233585032631063847817472949584320476440248630
> 84679095275423865024945605445753409898339853073059294087124774011287722546492127
> 62972400865159518827703828593731436308391546389929317169700711765434133961324582
> 97693404483382656279313365623031972096999364761979163694893622761122686928348348
> 07196644006761639633311471231139542173525305592277254293276275942139125758749457
> 69891681281004132735287674682042867919305179866549435789712991861208863483881890
> 39115302657245342293485174015930159670079378738589502079911367716280561206626535
> 01719723379970476153597425730635298262088450723504621344142074874913706905022470
> 02198850090175755879352895818443830907693412588218268967546329730097370278755764
> 76730751320075348687164402721234822846992486167153600980602735847643467571368168
> 99863594826601565948907759657469936568260438075458204749988849101965334273571657
> 16420881181339979898742505264673590698466566043595397780169130462727496128492837
> 77627600416027583282898136716693621094085751670393482504665669194749825949214893
> 70086026962810163923307683603758601480318966190834075014267886232530556905140403
> 79258424703782418595242302859469263813410712003058242641609053670666310150457228
> 35025011649914468809352252762136412024043592079930847013442474341372007600414025
> 89536566676081254897931163848222118183867086856442902770410504525614475290730530
> 21388448647354517764159480297140078759812228835325385049770351606648893979219087
> 52388668165360408562531789439132327782893596152624918067136391100916787976887835
> 92877940493217591791986820324873207027522723378107193496580225316724283621959912
> 77492710293891071200479124959374482916470845145326435451910262216417147922987452
> 26690726726767151067263404958618147687597388640334195630233423987908720590712382
> 57366375038933629206317361420231936315689147686718656118311146133642456902078601
> 33680697359244957751918731653410327029958624338637893707558351612829346835376501
> 18769473735899244580880201335255462128277405589270323257119884386585537751763455
> 97387994414198653893742183868572089475739463865347309265940536607141061884944968
> 70339085512200636094205585471995768988035753447397045653211753421280387214641472
> 01471797813051326314011669281176752796413124668118831239486084322075776155722832
> 34231706562959169690357808400669172289293143105173761462228255203734507047810987
> 49643774193005984636558619464787776528994210050046574949751514843403828144359017
> 02760004914799327029844902077898511535116377970084447717785398979119985092794182
> 77024262645706884881280963940792389998618487520588880147630882605755143160987315
> 02605122931820298246894509441552541957504564830526298362110121319510172409027433
> 46076367325701687764224170643943043331446233791650825690339663842599224528802942
> 40623988711594785361202151279188652189808600596884230871258561645042560559376248
> 71326158824969583624633799700588318521534123818187739615878934022759350527539475
> 53837829079061402768762932342975878874948733660920148755609212683142322158435947
> 04399452134178867881924571436122122736148861599757868131780612107254059004240043
> 24679854292804854507386309647131489137842403738285656393426348644539752407265392
> 19590151301061398211307385423567532370380155138136040731040525715993217937202752
> 55702691095906863380277972037630740708313409888318253555169694388414227808149172
> 32476922999000748817341435130493145769462937037095846214633438631406150721046992
> 13558187254198652370641997278402100709367169367381562726723014504754005442192939
> 35394225492874699060252595644302035809564410727378671423490969919117644026962246
> 33613191474670236568107659282337623814231669945254942402307720252110586442288009
> 58826530598076931573242549692110993983865072218826314149581327965474056197108099
> 06885356062528301307631803787559272761016948607015944235521468251175174565767915
> 01371784759015404092670754767373799258442813979136496455729064780439352144503653
>
> No, there's nothing else but the signature, twit. You can stop reading now.
>
>
> --
> Ed Murphy <emurphy42_at_socal.rr.com> "I'm not sure I can go through
> http://members.fortunecity.com/emurphy/ with it. Leave, I mean."
>
> --
> Rule Date: 2002-06-01 16:59:04 GMT
>
JUDGEMENT: We've been down this road before, haven't we? Rule 185.5
was invalidated because of its "Future rules shall all be INVALID due
to inconsistancy with this rule" provision. And now we have "ALL
FUTURE RULES ARE INVALID". I see no reason why one should be VALID
while the other is not.
Yet there are those who argued 185.5 should have been VALID, and their
arguments are not without merit.
Then again, no one proposed overturning that judgement, did they?
STYLE: Since this is INVALID, it may very well have positive style.
And indeed, this rule goes right through the nadir of unstylishness
and out the other side; it's so very unstylish, it's the height of
style. Except, of course, that it loses a style point for being
INVALID.
--
- Rich Holmes
Syracuse, NY
--
Rule Date: 2002-06-02 02:53:23 GMT
============================================================
From: rsholmes_at_mailbox.syr.edu (Richard S. Holmes)
Subject: Re: 185:10: VALID, 0.0
To: FRC <frc_at_trolltech.com>
Date: 03 Jun 2002 12:12:45 -0400
Joshua <j3b4_at_yahoo.com> writes:
> I realize now, that self criticism is not sufficient to improve the
> committee. These times call for stricter measures. For correction to be
> effective offensive members must be publicly named. It is only thus
> that their humiliation will be great enough to help them mend their
> ways.
>
> For example our lamentable comrade Ed Murphy is guilty of the noxious
> habit of posting large numbers. Recently he posted a number so large
> in fact, that by his own admission it WASTED the bandwidth of his
> fellow committee members. This behavior is low and despicable. I
> would not like to be accused of slander, but it has been suggested that
> large-number-posters tend to have poor hygiene and hairy palms. I do
> not say any of this out of spite, but out of love. For all of you know
> I have nothing but love for all committee members. By administering
> this chastisement I hope to elevate Ed Murphy out of his contemptible
> position into a place where he can better serve the committee.
>
> Despite my impressive abilities I cannot do all the work of improving
> the committee alone. Therefore it is now compulsory for everyone to
> help me. All future rules must point out a weakness or flaw in a
> fellow committee member. All future rules must also clearly state
> their lack of hostility and loving intent so that no one can feel
> slandered or unfairly attacked.
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> Find, Connect, Date! http://personals.yahoo.ca
>
> --
> Rule Date: 2002-06-02 18:00:07 GMT
>
JUDGEMENT: VALID.
STYLE: As Joshua is not Far too Righteous and Conceited, it's possible
this rule has positive style. Then again, it's possible it doesn't.
It seems more appropriate to a "Cultural Revolution" theme than one of
"Slander and Libel!", and the restriction is, I'm afraid, less than
inspired. 0.0.
--
- Rich Holmes
Syracuse, NY
--
Rule Date: 2002-06-03 16:13:04 GMT
============================================================
From: rsholmes_at_mailbox.syr.edu (Richard S. Holmes)
Subject: Re: 185:11
To: frc_at_trolltech.com (Fantasy Rules Committee)
Date: 04 Jun 2002 15:30:32 -0400
Jesse Welton <jwelton_at_pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu> writes:
> I hope this is in time...
>
> --- begin 185:11 ---
>
> I'm afraid Joshua's love is getting out of control. He left 37
> messages on my answering machine on Saturday, and last night I saw him
> watchng my window from the bushes. Furthermore, there could be
> children on this list, which would make him a pedophile in addition to
> a stalker. And what's with this complaint about Ed's large number? I
> mean, how large is too large? 1000000? 10000000000000000000000000000?
> 10010111001101001010101011110101101001001000100001010101010111110101010?
> 102990200200919190009191009901010 -- I'm sorry, what was I saying? I
> do tend to get caught up and forget what my point was. But I'm sure it
> was perfectly neutral, with neither hostility nor "loving intent", if
> you get my meaning.
>
> Next someone's going to say I'm twisting Joshua's words. Well, that
> person is a hypocrite, because e must henceforth twist others' words
> in like manner.
>
> --- end ---
>
> --
> Rule Date: 2002-06-04 19:19:54 GMT
>
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe Jesse's eligibility
expired about a day ago.
--
- Rich Holmes
Syracuse, NY
--
Rule Date: 2002-06-04 19:30:48 GMT
============================================================
From: rsholmes_at_mailbox.syr.edu (Richard S. Holmes)
Subject: Re: 185:12: INVALID, -2.0
To: frc_at_trolltech.com
Date: 10 Jun 2002 14:24:13 -0400
Joshua <j3b4_at_yahoo.com> writes:
> In my ongoing effort to improve the standards of the Fantasy Rules
> Committee I thin it behooves me to seek out the rest of the ne'er do
> wells and xpose them four what they ar. Hypocrites and sluts all of
> them. Let's go down the list and I defy NE1 to defend themselves
> against my biting and incisiv attax!
>
> Glenn und Chrystal are partners in infamy, notoriuos for slanderous
> behaviour. Most of it so hienious it cannot be mentioned here but we
> all know what I'm talking about don't we.
>
> Alan Overby on the otherhand has been doing his evil deeds in secret
> for some time now. I have been reluctant to speak out for fear of
> reprisals but now, as I am bout to become the indsiputed judge I can
> boldly denounce his viscous habits!
>
> James Wilson! Hah!
>
> Jonathan V.M. you, (I dunt mind saying so to your face!) are BEYOND
> THE BUCKET! How dare you show your face and spout your liblelous lies
> in such estimable company. For shame! For shame!
>
>
> All others on the other hand are merely to be chastised for their
> underzealous defense of their committee against the villians I've
> already mentioned. Perhaps your sluttish behaviour has not actually
> brought the committee to it's knees but it's certainly jabbed it
> paifully in the shins.
>
> Jesse Welton, now there's a name for muthrs to fright their children
> with. Behave and eat you lima beans little Johnny or Jesse Welton will
> slander thee mercilessly in a public forum. How this abombination has
> been permitted to run amok ammidst us so long is beyond me to explain.
>
> Aron Wall? What do you have to say for yourself? Wait, I can answer
> for you... NOTHING!! Muhahahahahahahahahahahahah!
>
> Ed Murphy on the other hand is really quite a pleasant chap and has
> been really underated by all you hypocrites. If we could all be more
> like Ed Murphy this committee would certainly have a better reputation.
>
> Last of all, I must not neglect to criticize Rich Holmes the pretender
> judge of this round. I think he's been biased and overly officious.
> Lacking all sympathy he's allowed himself to be swayed by his own
> inhuman nature. I am ashamed to have had a single rule judges valid by
> such a travesty of judgeness.
>
> Oh wait, I nearly forgot to criticize myself, and to show my sincerity
> and lack of hypocristy I will mention TWO faults. On one hand I am
> exceessively devoted to the cause of justice, love and world piece,
> this makes other people feel inadequate; on the othr hand my spelling
> sux.
>
> Becasue of my faults I am afraid that others will attack me unfairly
> and try to destroy my self esteem. In the future all rules must
> attempt to build my confidence by praising me. To be valid a rule must
> describe one or Joshua's better traits.
>
> Thank you Thank you!!!!
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> Movies, Music, Sports, Games! http://entertainment.yahoo.ca
>
> --
> Rule Date: 2002-06-08 15:14:54 GMT
>
JUDGEMENT: As I suspect Joshua knows fully well, this rule is INVALID
due to its failure to obey the restriction of Joshua's previous rule,
185:10.
STYLE: At last some decent defamation. But it's very unstylish to
violate one's own rule, especially when it's a recently posted one.
Wordy too, and I have to wonder why the deliberate spelling errors are
there. -2.0.
--
- Rich Holmes
Syracuse, NY
--
Rule Date: 2002-06-10 18:24:35 GMT
============================================================
Proposals
============================================================
From: Stephen Turner <sret1_at_ntlworld.com>
Subject: Re: Round 184 Final Score - Is the Fantasy Rules Committee Still Alive?
To: Fantasy Rules Committee <frc_at_trolltech.com>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 15:29:08 +0100 (BST)
On Thu, 23 May 2002, Joshua wrote:
>
> At this time the only eligible player is "Viagara for Women". "Viagara
> for Women" becomes the judge for round 185.
> Richard S. Holmes is the Wizard.
>
I propose the following Temporary Overrule under RO9:
185:A Notwithstanding Regular Ordinance 5(c), Richard Holmes shall be the
Judge for round 185.
I vote FOR this proposal.
--
Stephen Turner, Cambridge, UK http://homepage.ntlworld.com/adelie/stephen/
"This is Henman's 8th Wimbledon, and he's only lost 7 matches." BBC, 2/Jul/01
--
Rule Date: 2002-05-23 18:04:18 GMT
[Votes FOR: Stephen Turner <sret1_at_ntlworld.com>,
rsholmes_at_mailbox.syr.edu (Richard S. Holmes), Jesse Welton
<jwelton_at_pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu>, Glenn & Chrystal Overby
<guardcaptain_at_earthlink.net>, Tieka <cmhuston_at_mts.net>, Joshua
<j3b4_at_yahoo.com>, "Alan Riddell" <peekee_at_blueyonder.co.uk>, "Jonathan
Van Matre" <JVanMatre_at_oslp.com>. Votes AGAINST: None.]
============================================================
From: rsholmes_at_mailbox.syr.edu (Richard S. Holmes)
Subject: Re: Round 184 Final Score - Is the Fantasy Rules Committee Still Alive?
To: Fantasy Rules Committee <frc_at_trolltech.com>
Date: 23 May 2002 15:06:53 -0400
Stephen Turner <sret1_at_ntlworld.com> writes:
> I propose the following Temporary Overrule under RO9:
>
> 185:A Notwithstanding Regular Ordinance 5(c), Richard Holmes shall be the
> Judge for round 185.
I vote FOR this proposal. However, I also propose a Temporary Overrule:
185:B Jonathan Van Matre shall be the Wizard for round 185.
(However, given that the Judge seemed eager for a loophole, I hope e
will change eir ruling on the outcome of Round 184 based on the
arguments already presented and render both these proposals moot.)
--
- Rich Holmes
Syracuse, NY
--
Rule Date: 2002-05-23 19:07:11 GMT
[Votes FOR: rsholmes_at_mailbox.syr.edu (Richard S. Holmes), Jesse Welton
<jwelton_at_pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu>, Glenn & Chrystal Overby
<guardcaptain_at_earthlink.net>, Tieka <cmhuston_at_mts.net>, Joshua
<j3b4_at_yahoo.com>, "Alan Riddell" <peekee_at_blueyonder.co.uk>. Votes
AGAINST: None.]
============================================================
From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <JVanMatre_at_oslp.com>
Subject: Proposal 185:C
To: "Fantasy Rules Committee" <frc_at_trolltech.com>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 14:08:48 -0500
PROPOSED: For the duration of Round 185, The Judge shall have the
authority to change eir ruling on any rule, and the style points awarded
to that rule, at any time.
ARGUMENT: It is expected that the Judge will not do so arbitrarily, but
within the constraints of Rule 185:1. This is to facilitate a changing
player "reputation" which is synonymous with the style score, and allow
players to invalidate each other's rules by noting errors in them,
thereby setting up a climate in which accusations of libel, slander, and
defamation may run rampant. See Rule 185:1 for a more detailed
explanation.
--
Rule Date: 2002-05-28 19:10:17 GMT
[Withdrawn.]
============================================================
From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <JVanMatre_at_oslp.com>
Subject: RE: Proposal 185:D
To: "Fantasy Rules Committee" <frc_at_trolltech.com>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 14:45:00 -0500
I hereby rescinde Proposal 185:C and in its stead, propose 185:D as
follows...
PROPOSED: For the duration of Round 185, The Judge shall
have the authority to change eir ruling on any rule, and the
style points awarded to that rule, at any time and for any reason.
ARGUMENT: It is expected (although not explicitly required, and
deliberately so) that the Judge will not do so arbitrarily, but within
the constraints of Rule 185:1. This is to facilitate a changing player
"reputation" which is synonymous with the style score, and allow players
to invalidate each other's rules by noting errors in them, thereby
setting up a climate in which accusations of libel, slander, and
defamation may run rampant. See Rule 185:1 for
a more detailed explanation.
--
Rule Date: 2002-05-28 19:46:33 GMT
[Votes FOR: rsholmes_at_mailbox.syr.edu (Richard S. Holmes), "Jonathan
Van Matre" <JVanMatre_at_oslp.com>, "Alan Riddell"
<peekee_at_blueyonder.co.uk>, Factitious <x40_at_pacbell.net>. Votes
AGAINST: None.]
============================================================
From: Glenn & Chrystal Overby <guardcaptain_at_earthlink.net>
Subject: Proposal 185:E
To: FRC List <frc_at_trolltech.com>
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 14:19:48 -0500
<proposal>
The Committee declares Rule 185:9 to be Sucky, and requests that the Judge deal
with it in accordance with the Rules.
</proposal>
I vote FOR this proposal, while still laughing...
Glenn E. Overby II
Tilton, Illinois, USA
=====
--
Rule Date: 2002-06-04 20:16:58 GMT
[Votes FOR: Glenn & Chrystal Overby <guardcaptain_at_earthlink.net>,
"Alan Riddell" <peekee_at_blueyonder.co.uk>. Votes AGAINST: Mark Nau
<nau_at_treyarch.com>.]
--
- Rich Holmes
Syracuse, NY
--
Rule Date: 2002-06-10 18:58:42 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST