Summary of Round 206 in progress

From: Ed Murphy (emurphy42_at_socal.rr.com)
Date: Wed Apr 09 2003 - 10:04:14 PDT


Summary of Round 206 in progress
(All times are UTC)


Player              Eligible until           Style
--------------------------------------------------
Steve Gardner       Tue  8 Apr 06:27:54      +3.0
Alan Riddell        Mon  7 Apr 06:27:54      +1.0
Andre Engels        Tue  8 Apr 19:21:40      +1.0
Nathan Russell      Fri 11 Apr 05:12:46      +2.0

everyone else       Tue  8 Apr 06:27:54


206:1

 > April Fool's Day is traditionally a time for jokes and pranks.
 > Newspapers print fake headlines, etc. So, for this Round, each Rule
 > must, as this one does, make exactly one claim that is false.

I'm going to use my considerably leeway as Judge to say that sentence 1
is true, sentence 2 is true, sentence 3 is false, the rule is not
self-contradictory but is instead VALID.

+1.0 "restriction" that really isn't
----
+1.0 total


206:2

 > Lets examine the claims that Rule 206:1 makes.
 >
 > 1) April Fool's Day is traditionally a time for jokes.
 > 2) April Fool's Day is traditionally a time for pranks
 > 3) On April Fool's newspapers print fake headlines, etc.
 > 4) For this Round, each Rule must make exactly one claim that is false.
 > 5) Rule 206:1 makes a claim that is false.
 >
 > There is a question that 1) and 2) might both be in the same claim,
 > similarly 4) and 5) might be in the same claim. It should be noted that if
 > 4) is true then 5) is true (assuming the validity of the rule).
 >
 > Now "traditionally" is a strange word as traditions can be current or very
 > long running. While there can be no doubt that in current Western society
 > April Fool's is a time for Jokes, if we examine the history of the day we
 > find things are not so simple.
 >
 > http://www.infoplease.com/spot/aprilfools1.html
 >
 > But even in the past those who referred to 1st April as "April Fool's Day"
 > made jokes and played pranks. It does not matter if 1) and 2) are different
 > claims or not.
 >
 > It is not hard to find evidence that some newspapers have printed false
 > headlines on April Fool's Day, so 3) is true.
 >
 > Now if 4) and 5) are one claim they must be false but this becomes circular
 > and generally unpleasant and IMO would cause the Rule to be invalid. So 4)
 > and 5) must be separate claims, if 4) is true and 5) is false there is a
 > contradiction, therefore it must be the case that 5) is true and 4) is
 > false.
 >
 > As such I reimpose the missing rescriction that 206:1 would impose.
 >
 > For this Round, each Rule must make exactly one claim that is false.

The last sentence is false (otherwise the similar claim in 206:1 would
become true, and 206:1 would then fail to meet the restriction).  Thus
the next-to-last sentence is also false.

Anything explicitly labelled as a claim may be false.  In the Judge's
esteemed (*) opinion, the last sentence of 206:1 bears a sufficiently
explicit label, but the next-to-last sentence of 206:2 does not.  INVALID.

+2.0 challenging to judge
-0.5 repetition
-0.5 length
----
+1.0 total

I also add "+2.0 challenging to judge" to 206:1, bringing its total style
up to the full +3.0 amount.

(*) This claim may be false.


206:3

 > This rule makes four claims:
 >
 > 1. During this round, at least one rule will fool someone into
 > thinking the round is over prematurely.
 >
 > 2. During this round, at least one rule will fool the judge into
 > awarding style points incorrectly.
 >
 > 3. During this round, at least one person will fool at least one other
 > person by pretending to be the Judge.

VALID.  As we have seen before, explicitly-labelled claims may be false
without causing contradiction.

+1.0 self-referential claim
----
+1.0 total


206:4

 > As Steve says, April Fools' Day is a time for jokes.  It is also
 > traditionally a time to dance while standing on one's hand, at least among
 > certain Martian tribes.
 >
 > Accordinly, each rule, like this one, must describe a tradition, which need
 > not be true.

206:1, 206:2, and 206:3 all describe traditions.  (Pretending to be the
Judge is a tradition!)  VALID.  Note that the final restriction is not
explicitly labelled as a claim, so it *is* binding.

+1.0 restriction that really is, for variety
+0.5 restriction applies to itself
+0.5 restriction applies to past rules
+0.5 Martian silliness
-0.5 first sentence is redundant with 206:1
----
+2.0 total

-- 
Rule Date: 2003-04-10 02:29:28 GMT


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST