From: jcm3_at_cec.wustl.edu
Date: Mon May 24 2004 - 15:07:38 PDT
OK There are three remaining players, and two days left. Here is where we stand. (Feel free to notify me if I have made mistakes.) Quick summary: Theme: "collective intelligence." "224:1" INVALID - contradicts itself "224:2" VALID "All future rules must claim that their authors are ignorant of previous rules. (Ignorance of course is no excuse for non-compliance.)" "224:2 (james)" VALID If you say you perform an action (like "I second...") then no other player can say they act using that same action verb. If you say you hold a belief, no other member may say they hold the same exact belief. "Re: 224:2" INVALID - another player has already performed "seconding" "224:3" VALID No future rule may be seconded. "224:3" Gatsby INVALID - does not claim ignorance. "Seconds, anyone?" INVALID -.4 Players: Arnt Gulbrandsen - ELIGIBLE UNTIL May 26 Karl Low - ELIGIBLE UNTIL May 26 James Wilson - ELIGIBLE UNTIL May 24 All others - INELIGIBLE Details --------------------------- My theme suggestion for this round is "collective intelligence." Think: The Borg. The web is just one step closer to the goal of a physical manifestation of shared intelligence. It is not coincidental that the associative structure of the web resembles the associative structures of the brain - In the physical universe there are few other structures that have such an associative structure. Certainly, without rules, this new era will tear apart the very fabric of our society. I am confident that you, the members of the FRC, can come up with some rational [or irrational?] rules that will prevent [or cause?] this from happening ;) Yes: I will award bonus style points for multiple posts by the same person, so long as there is an intervening post. Round begins when the first rule is posted. Jae =========== 224:1 - INVALID. This rule contradicts itself. It essentially says "This rule has no effect unless it has an effect." Assume that the content of rule 224:1 is in effect. This contradicts the statement "rule 224:1 will take effect when it is seconded." Assume that the content of rule 224:1 is not in effect. This implicitly contradicts the ROs in that posted rules are assumed to be in effect when they are posted. Assuming the content of a posted rule is in effective has also been our custom. On the other hand, I will grant you the observation that the content of a rule can be separated from its rule. Therefore, if this rule is seconded, I will judge its content to be in effect even though the container rule is invalid. You will still have 1 less day to post another valid rule, in accordance with the ROs. If the content of this rule becomes active, I will judge all "seconds" and "relevant discussion" that do not also contain rules as if they are rules, in accordance with the ROs. Style: +1 on theme +1 almost convincing me this rule was valid. -1 almost convincing me this rule was valid. +1 promotes participation. -1 promotes participation that doesn't include new rules. ----- +1 Total > > One of the benefits of collaboration is that feedback on > new ideas prevents really bad ideas from getting instantiated. > > At one end of the spectrum is consensus with no debate -- the > only things to agree on are the ones obvious to all before any > discussion at all -- at the other end is a vituperative hell where > no-one agrees even though everyone fully understands each others' > points of view. > > In keeping with the theme of "the hive mind," I propose that all > rules in round 224 must be seconded before taking effect. To stop > 224 itself from being hypocritical (that role is reserved for the > Judge)rule 224:1 will take effect when it is seconded by another active > player, giving the committee a chance to forward alternate proposals. > > Seconding, to comply with this edict, includes a paraphrase of the > restrictions imposed by the rule in question, made to the game forum. > > Furthermore, for purposes of keeping active, seconding constitutes play. > > Furthermore, for purposes of keeping proposals, discussion, and > seconding straight, a convention of prefixing numbers and titles > in the subject lines will be followed, (and in case of collisions > the number will be incremented in the later posts as received by > the archive. As if that happens.) Relevant discussion may also > constitute play. > > I thought about declaring that "all valid play must be sent from > e-mail addresses in domains with valid SPF records" but that may be > premature at this point > > > -- David Nicol =========== 224:2 VALID +2, no effect! What a mess. Ok here is what has happened: 1) With no previous valid rules, 224:2 is clearly valid. 2) 224:1 is now seconded. Although the rule is still INVALID, I am going to judge its *content* to be in effect (as stated in 224:1). This is what I get for allowing INVALID rules to have effects :( 3) 224:2 now has no effect on the game, because it has not been seconded. Therefore 224:1 is NOT seconded. 4) The ROs state that a rule can only be judged INVALID if it is inconsistent with a previous VALID rule. I won't say that 224:1 is inconsistent with 224:2, but 224:1 is not even VALID. Ok, I am not beneath letting a paradox remain active during this round. But for the sake of my single brain, I am going to interpret the 224:1 clause "rules in round 224 must be seconded before taking effect" to not provide a provision for retracting seconding. 224:1 *was* seconded, so it is in effect. 224:1 is invalid *with* an effect 224:2 is valid with *no* effect Ruling: VALID Style: +1 Seconds a rule +1 On theme: ignorance would be a key to hive intelligence. It would get really hard to think if most thoughts weren't ignored. Jae > I second rule 224:1. > > However I don't recall reading it. All future rules must > claim that > their authors are ignorant of previous rules. (Ignorance > of course is > no excuse for non-compliance.) > =========== 224:2 (james) VALID +2 Well, at first this would seem to be a round ending rule. After all, someone has posted a rule, therefore no one else may post a rule. Game over. However, I cannot know for certain if you are actually performing actions or holding opinions unless you tell me. After all, for all I know, your pet cat may have pressed the submit button, and therefore your cat performed the "post rule" action. And certainly I cannot read your minds (we'll be able to do this in the future, of course), so I cannot know your opinion unless you tell me. Examples: "I second XYZ rule" INVALID - this has been done already. "Future rules cannot ABC" VALID - You are not explicitly stating an action. "I think ASDF" VALID - no one else has said they "think" yet. "I believe ASDF" INVALID - although no one has "believed" anything yet, soneone has held the opinion "ASDF." Style: +1 On theme +1 Attempting to win +0.5 Claiming ignorance Jae > > 224:2 >>>>>>>>>>> > > Did you read 224:1? > I had planned to, but since it was ruled INVALID, I didn't > bother. > > That's OK, though, since as members of the FRC Hive Mind, > we have the strength of group. Somone read it, so I don't > need to. > > In fact, to improve Hive efficiency, from now on none of > us > shall perform an action or hold an opinion that was > already > performed or held by another member. > =========== "Re: 224:2" INVALID +0.1 224:2 is now "effective" and remains "VALID". 224:2 (james) is now "effective" and remains "VALID". I want to be consistant here. In my post "224:1 -- INVALID +1" I stated that seconding and discussion would be judged as valid play in accordance with 224:1 if 224:1 was seconded. 224:2 seconded it. "224:2 (james) VALID +2" I ruled that stated actions, like "seconding" could not be duplicated. Although is may seem that INVALID 224:1 is causing this posting to be INVALID, it is actually a judgement that I made that is causing this posing to be interpreted as a rule. The ROs do not rule on how to differentiate rule posts from other posts, so I am using my own (perhaps misguided) discresion here. Style: +1 Seconds two rules! -1 Does not introduce an additional rule. +0.1 second posting. > > I second 224:2 > > > -- > david nicol =========== 224:3 VALID +2.5 Although others have claimed ignorance before, I see ignorance as the absence of opinion, and therefore does not conflict with the opinions of others. Without the ability to "second" a rule, I will judge all future "rule contents" as "ineffective," yet judge that "rules" will still be used to determine "validity." This is not too far from reality anyway =). Style: +1 On theme +1 Makes my life easier +0.5 Claims ignorance, and acts on that ignorance to squeltch the "effective yet invalid" 224:1 > I'm ignorant of previous rules. > The hive doesn't second rules, that implies individuality > in that they > might not be seconded. We act with one mind and one voice. > This much is > obvious. As such, no future rule, including this one, may > be seconded. =========== 224:3 Gatsby INVALID -0.3 This rule does not claim ignorance of a previous rule (224:2). It was posted within minuets of 224:3, but there is no conflict there anyway. Stlye: +0.2 You have posted three times. -0.5 Not on theme. Jae > Shall not occur within this round again that glyph twixt > d and f. =========== wrt. "224:3 Gatsby" VALID -1 It should be obvious that "224:3 Gatsby" has the word "address" in its header. The way that David does not state this fact makes it clear to me that he is claiming ignorance (albeit implicitly) of a previous rule. No one else has acted to "point out" anything. This is therefore VALID, and extends the play time for Arnt. Also, as a technical point, I will only judge the contents and not the header of rule posts as part of a rule. Style: -0.5 Not on theme -0.5 Does not introduce a new rule. > Quoting david nicol: >> Shall not occur within this round again that glyph >> twixt d and f. > > I reluctantly point out that David Nicol's 224:3 contains > that glyph in > its "from" addr... addr... uh... > > Arnt > "Seconds, anyone?" INVALID -.4 "second"ing has been done. Same as "Re: 224:2" Style: -0.5 no rule +0.1 second post. > > I second 224:5 >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST