From: Joshua (j3b4_at_yahoo.com)
Date: Wed Jun 12 2002 - 19:35:57 PDT
Well if no one (Glenn Overby) wants to dispute this ruling I will accept the appointment as Judge. See my next post. --- "Richard S. Holmes" <rsholmes_at_MailBox.Syr.Edu> wrote: > 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 185:C WITHDRAWN 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 ______________________________________________________________________ Movies, Music, Sports, Games! http://entertainment.yahoo.ca -- Rule Date: 2002-06-13 02:36:08 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST