From: James Willson (jkvw3_at_yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Mar 26 2002 - 20:30:26 PST
For anyone, e.g. Aron Wall, who missed it the first time around
--- James Willson <jkvw3_at_yahoo.com> wrote:
> Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 15:52:01 -0800 (PST)
> From: James Willson <jkvw3_at_yahoo.com>
> Subject: 179 - final summary
> To: frc <frc_at_trolltech.com>
>
> 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
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards®
http://movies.yahoo.com/
--
Rule Date: 2002-03-27 04:30:46 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST