Re: Round 185 final summary

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 185:C  WITHDRAWN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