From: Richard S. Holmes (rsholmes_at_MailBox.Syr.Edu)
Date: Fri Nov 15 2002 - 07:12:08 PST
"Jeff Weston (Sir Toby)" <jjweston_at_kenny.sir-toby.com> writes: > Upon the adoption of this proposal, the decision of the judge for 196:8 > will be changed to Valid. > > My arguments: > > I really hate to throw yet another proposal out there, but I feel I need > to establish this precedent with regards to the requirement of 196:3. > 196:3 states: "make all eulogies shorter than those before them". Since it > doesn't state the all eulogies must be shorter than the one eulogy > immediately before it, we must assume that the eulogy must be shorter than > the combination of ALL eulogies that came before it. > > Below, I've provided a character count of all of the rules up to and > including 196:8. Carriage returns have been treated as a character for > this count. > > 196:1 - 462 > 196:2 - 1016 > 196:3 - 438 > 196:4 - 342 > 196:5 - 219 > 196:6 - 165 > 196:7 - 164 > 196:8 - 1214 > > There's some confusion about the validity of several rules, but the > validity of rules 196:1 and 196:2 has never been questioned. With the > character count of just those two rules alone, we have the length of rule > 196:8 more than covered. > > The length of rule 196:8 was the only problem the judge found with it. I > don't feel that the length is a problem, given my arguments above. > > My evidence: > > Judge's ruling for 196:8 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 13:16:55 -0500 > From: Tieka <cmhuston_at_mts.net> > To: "Jeff Weston (Sir Toby)" <jjweston_at_kenny.sir-toby.com>, > frc_at_trolltech.com > Subject: Re: 196:8 INVALID +3.0 > > on 11/13/02 1:12 AM, Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) at jjweston_at_kenny.sir-toby.com > wrote: > > > Ah FRC... It seems I hardly knew thee. My first memories of FRC start > > with round 187 in July of this year. While I found the puzzle theme > > fascinating, I also found it too tricky to try to participate in it. > > However, my fondest memories of FRC come from round 190. You see, that > > was the round where I posted my first ever rule. Then there was round > > 191 where I was a co-wizard with Ed Murphy. Very fond memories... > > *sniff* I'll miss you FRC! > > > > Of course, I sincerely hope that this eulogy is not needed. 196:2 has > > provided us with the excellent suggestion of deciphering the F'rcyeh > > Tablets. I understand that even now, scientists have decoded a portion > > of the F'rcyeh Tablets! The first secret they have discovered may reveal > > the perfect method to keep FRC from assuming room temperature. The name > > they have given the snippet is "Fantastic Rule Cooking". Here is the > > snippet of the F'rcyeh Tablets that they have deciphered: > > > > ----- > > > > ...the oven set at 200 degrees. If the temperature of FRC gets anywhere > > near to room temperature, place it in the oven to correct the problem. > > Repeat as often... > > > > ----- > > > > All further rules must announce a further deciphering of the F'rcyeh > > Tablets, and name the new deciphering. > > > > -- > > Rule Date: 2002-11-13 06:19:52 GMT > > Ah, the agony for the Judge. A beutiful eulogy, and it follows the > suggestion (restrictions) of 196:1-7, but alas, it is longer than 196:4. I > wish that I could do more for this wonderful rule, but style of +3.0 is > all that I can do for this INVALID rule. > > Tieka, > wiping a tear from my eye. > > -- > Rule Date: 2002-11-14 19:18:29 GMT > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I will refrain from voting until I see some of the discussion surrounding > this proposal. Once again, I offer my apologies for throwing yet another > proposal into an already proposal heavy round. At least this rash of > proposals seems to have kicked some new life into FRC, so they can't be > all bad. :) > > -- > Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) > > -- > Rule Date: 2002-11-15 10:14:32 GMT > I vote AGAINST this proposal. While it is customary to judge a rule VALID if there is any reasonable interpretation by which it is VALID, there is no requirement to do so: the Judge is perfectly within eir rights to choose a restrictive interpretation and judge accordingly. In any case I believe it's better procedure to address an objection to the judge and give em eir three days to change eir decision before Proposing an overturn. -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY -- Rule Date: 2002-11-15 15:12:29 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST