From: James Willson (jkvw3_at_yahoo.com)
Date: Sat Mar 23 2002 - 15:52:01 PST
Round 179 has ended. Aron Wall is the winner; Mark Nau is the wizard Quick Summary: 179:1 Mark Nau VALID +2.0 2002-03-15 18:23:44 GMT 179:2 Rich Holmes VALID +1.0 2002-03-15 20:29:54 GMT 179:3 Aron Wall VALID +1.0 2002-03-15 22:10:33 GMT 179:4 Ed Murphy INVALID 0.0 2002-03-16 00:43:38 GMT 179:5 Mark Nau INVALID +0.5 2002-03-16 01:02:47 GMT 179:6 Alan Riddell INVALID 0.0 2002-03-16 13:03:51 GMT 179:7 Alan Riddell VALID +0.5 2002-03-16 13:26:18 GMT 179:8 Aron Wall VALID -2.0 2002-03-16 19:16:28 GMT 179:9 Ed Murphy INVALID +1.0 2002-03-16 19:39:48 GMT 179:10 Rich Holmes INVALID 0.0 2002-03-21 20:51:03 GMT Style Totals: Mark Nau +2.5 Rich Holmes +1.0 Ed Murphy +1.0 Alan Riddell +0.5 Aron Wall -1.0 Proposal 179:A "Which rules are real?" ------------------------------------------ For the duration of Round 179, the Judge shall make his determination as to the validity of fantasy rules privately and secretly, and if he posts any statement as to the validity or invalidity of a fantasy rule in the FRC Forum, it may or may not be accurate. The 3 day time limit for judgements does not apply. The expiration of players' eligibilities shall be equally secret, of course, but if an ineligible player tries to post a rule the fact that the rule is void shall be pointed out by the Judge. Style judgements shall be made normally. When it becomes the case that only one player is eligible, the Judge shall reveal which rules were VALID and which were INVALID, at which point the round shall end. ------------------------------------------- FOR: Aron Wall, David Glasser, Alan Riddell, Jonathan Van Matre, Ed Murphy, Glenn Overby II, Karl Low, Factitious AGAINST: <none> 179:1 VALID +2.0 Mark Nau 2002-03-15 18:23:44 GMT All rules must include the letter 'x'. Notes: This rule was buried in a message to the list which was designed to appear to be spam. Judgement: No problems here. Style: The actual restriction is drab, but submitting the rule as a "spam scam" seems perfect for this round. We'll never know what effect it might have had, since one of the less evil committee members exposed the tomfoolery, but a good idea anyway. 179:2 VALID +1.0 Rich Holmes 2002-03-15 20:29:54 GMT All rules beginning with this one shall consist of two parts: a Real part and an Imaginary part, separated by a line of equal signs ('='). The meaning of a rule (for purposes of determining its validity and that of subsequent rules) is expressed by its Real part; the Imaginary part contributes nothing to the rule's meaning, though it can affect the rule's style. ====================================================================== All rules beginning with this one shall consist of two parts: a Real part and an Imaginary part, separated by a line of equal signs ('='). The meaning of a rule (for purposes of determining its validity and that of subsequent rules) is expressed by its Imaginary part; the Rule part contributes nothing to the rule's meaning, though it can affect the rule's style. Notes: After posting this rule to the list, Rich attempted to edit out a "typo", replacing "Rule" with "Real", by sending another post announcing the correction. Of course, I did not honor the correction. Judgement: It's worth pondering if this runs afoul of the RO's. I tried something similar to this in round 160, and the judge didn't even blink, which surprised me. I'm going to allow this, but I think there are some undesired consequences to allowing this sort of rule . . . The Rule part of a rule is, of course, the rule in its entirity. This makes disambiguating 179:2 easy, since if the second section were active, then it would be inactive, thus the first section must be active. Style: The "typo" is worth a bump in style, but the rule concept works well for the round. 179:3 VALID +1.0 Aron Wall 2002-03-15 22:10:33 GMT No future rule shall reveal which of the halves of the previous VALID rule is the Real part, except when that information can already be deduced, in which case they shall correctly state which half is Real. ====================== The other half of the Real part of this rule (separated from this active part by a row of equals signs) shall not be regarded as being stated by this rule as fact. Instead, it shall be disobeyed by each future rule. ====================== The Imaginary half of this rule is divided into two parts, separated by a row of equals signs. All future rules are to obey one half and disobey the other half. Judgement: There are enough complexities here that I think it's worth looking at each of the four cases individually. (I=R=R) and (R=R=I) Impossible. We know from 179:2 that the meaning of a rule is expressed by its real part. This is contradicted by the second block. (R=I=I) Possible. Obey the first block, and ignore the other two. A simple case. (I=I=R) Possible. Obey the third block. To do so, obey exactly one of the first two. To obey the second block, disobey "the other half of the real part of this rule". That would make your rule invalid, so you'll just have to obey the first block of the rule. So we know what we have to do, but we don't know what part of the rule is real. Style: The use of two seperators is good. The actual content strikes me as a bit messy rather than stylish, though. 179:4 INVALID 0.0 Ed Murphy 2002-03-16 00:43:38 GMT Future rules must obey their own restrictions. ====================================================================== Future rules may either obey or disobey their own restrictions. ====================================================================== Future rules must disobey their own restrictions. Judgement: There is no letter 'x'. Style: It's pretty dull, isn't it? 179:5 INVALID +0.5 Mark Nau 2002-03-16 01:02:47 GMT This is the Real part of this Rule. The Real part of future Rules must include at least one multisyllabic word from the prior Rule's Imaginary Part, just as this rule does. ============================================== This is the Real part of this Rule. The Imaginary part of future Rules must include at least one multisyllabic word from the prior Rule's Real Part, just as this rule does. Judgement: There is no letter 'x'. Style: Of all the players to fall for the letter search restriction, you fell for it yourself? :) 179:6 INVALID 0.0 Alan Riddell 2002-03-16 13:03:51 GMT A:Not Real = B:Not Imaginary =================================== A:Imaginary = B:Real Judgement: There is no letter 'x'. Style: I like the intersecting lines of equals signs, but the content of the rule seems void of meaning, doesn't it? 179:7 VALID +0.5 Alan Riddell 2002-03-16 13:26:18 GMT Imaginary Part = Never = not in same = in = area = future = as = leave = last = imaginary = valid = or = rule, = Real = except = Part = in = empty. = past. = Such = = actions = = exclude = = validity. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Judgement: Ok, here's the first rule where 179:3 comes into play. We couldn't deduce which part of 179:3 was real, so it's good that this rule does not reveal which is real. There is some question as to what the "same area" is, but I'll postpone figuring out exactly what that means until it becomes relavent. (I=I=R) Possible. Also is void of restriction. (I=R=R) Possible. Prohibits future empty sections. (R=I=I) Possible. Don't use "same area". (R=R=I) Possilbe. Includes both restrictions. Style: It looks like this rule is trying to stay one the fence with respect to 179:4, both obeying and not obeying its own restriction. Still, with (I=I=R) being possible, it's quite likely that this rule will exert no weight on the rest of the round. 179:8 VALID -2.0 Aron Wall 2002-03-16 19:16:28 GMT To multiply a rule by imaginary one, interpret its Real part as an Imaginary part and then interpret its Imaginary part as a Real part that orders all future rules to do the opposite of what the Imaginary part says to do (i x i = -1). All INVALID rules, past, present, and future, in order of submision, shall be multiplied by imaginary one and if this does not make it impossible to submit any more rules, the rule multiplied by imaginary one shall restrict any rules after this one to obey it. ======================================================= The two rightmost sections of the previous VALID rule are the Real section. If three VALID rules are submitted in a row, the next rule after that shall be INVALID, except if the rule is awarded more style points then the sum of the previous three rules' style point awards. Oh, and after three INVALID rules in a row, the rule after that shall always be VALID if the square of its style is smaller than the sum of the squares of the three INVALID rules' style subtracted from the square of the style of the most sylish of the three INVALID rules. Judgement: The RO's prohibit me from declaring a rule VALID if it is inconsistent with prior fantasy rules. The RO's allow me to award style points however I see fit. The second block either prohibits me from awarding certain style points to certain rules, or requires me to declare certain rules VALID even though they are inconsistent with prior fantasy rules. Take your pick, both run afoul of the RO's. Also, the second block states which part of the previous valid rule is real, in violation of 179:3. So how about the first block? I don't think there is anything to invalidate it, but, ugh. Note that we only invert what the rule tells rules to do. We do not invert statements of fact like "This is the real part of this rule". Also, future rules, though required to obey the restrictions of the inverted rule, they are not bound by statements of fact in the inverted rule, as statements of fact cannot be "obeyed". Style: Although multiplication by imaginary one is an interesting idea, I'm not sure I like the idea of resurrecting invalid rules. Actually, I am sure. I don't like it. There is an escape clause which prevents the rule from being valid, winning, and no fun. (i.e., "if this does not make it impossible to submit any more rules") But even with this precaution, it is still quite possible for the inversion of an invalid rule to create a restriction that trivializes the game. 179:4*I1 is one of the following: (#'s added by me for emphasis) (R=I=I) Future rules must not obey their own restrictions. ====================================================================== #Future rules may either obey or disobey their own restrictions. ====================================================================== #Future rules must disobey their own restrictions. (R=R=I) Future rules must not obey their own restrictions. ====================================================================== Future rules may neither obey nor disobey their own restrictions. ====================================================================== #Future rules must disobey their own restrictions. (I=I=R) #Future rules must obey their own restrictions. ====================================================================== #Future rules may either obey or disobey their own restrictions. ====================================================================== Future rules must not disobey their own restrictions. (I=R=R) #Future rules must obey their own restrictions. ====================================================================== Future rules may neither obey nor disobey their own restrictions. ====================================================================== Future rules must not disobey their own restrictions. 179:5*I1 is one of the following: (#'s added by me for emphasis) (R=I) This is the Real part of this Rule. The Real part of future Rules must not include any multisyllabic word from the prior Rule's Imaginary Part, just as this rule does. ============================================== #This is the Real part of this Rule. The Imaginary part of future Rules must #include at least one multisyllabic word from the prior Rule's Real Part, just #as #this rule does. (I=R) #This is the Real part of this Rule. The Real part of future Rules must include #at least one multisyllabic word from the prior Rule's Imaginary Part, just as #this rule does. ============================================== This is the Real part of this Rule. The Imaginary part of future Rules must not include any multisyllabic word from the prior Rule's Real Part, just as this rule does. 179:6*I1 has no restrictions. Since it does not restrict rules, for now we can ignore it as moot. 179:9 INVALID +1.0 Ed Murphy 2002-03-16 19:39:48 GMT Future rules must include at least one restriction in both their Real and Imaginary parts. ====================================================================== Future rules must exclude at least one restriction in their Real part from their Imaginary part, and/or vice versa. Judgement: We deduced the real part of the previos valid rule. As such, this rule violates 179:3. Style: Nothing too impressive, but solid enough. 179:9*I1 is one of the following: (#'s added by me for emphasis) (R=I), interpretation one Future rules must either not include any restriction their Real part or not include any restriction in their Imaginary part. ====================================================================== #Future rules must exclude at least one restriction in their Real part #from their Imaginary part, and/or vice versa. (R=I), interpretation two In future rules, no restriction may appear in both its Real part and its Imaginary part. ====================================================================== #Future rules must exclude at least one restriction in their Real part #from their Imaginary part, and/or vice versa. (I=R) #Future rules must include at least one restriction in both their Real #and Imaginary parts. ====================================================================== Future rules must not exclude any restriction in their Real part from their Imaginary part. Future rules must not exclude any restriction in their Imaginary part from their Real part. 179:10 VALID 0.0 Rich Holmes 2002-03-21 20:51:03 GMT The act of posting a probably invalid rule solely to learn whether one is still eligible shall be known as "xorbeling". ============================================================ The act of posting a probably invalid rule solely to learn whether one is still eligible shall be known as "xerboling". Judgement: We deduced the real part of the previos valid rule. As such, this rule violates 179:3. Style: It would appear that Rich successfully xrboeled. And immediately lost eligibility thereafter. A clever enough idea that a rule otherwise void of interest can get zero style. 179:10*I1 has no restrictions. Since it does not restrict rules, for now we can ignore it as moot. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards® http://movies.yahoo.com/ -- Rule Date: 2002-03-23 23:52:11 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST