179 - final summary

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