Round 224: UPDATE

Date: Mon May 24 2004 - 15:07:38 PDT


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
"Re: 224:2" INVALID - another player has already performed
"224:3" VALID No future rule may be seconded.
"224:3" Gatsby INVALID - does not claim ignorance.
"Seconds, anyone?" INVALID -.4


Arnt Gulbrandsen - ELIGIBLE UNTIL May 26
Karl Low - ELIGIBLE UNTIL May 26
James Wilson - ELIGIBLE UNTIL May 24
All others - INELIGIBLE

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
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.



224:1 - INVALID.  This rule contradicts itself.  It
essentially says "This rule has no effect unless it has an
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

+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
> 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
> 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


+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.


> 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.

"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."

+1 On theme
+1 Attempting to win
+0.5 Claiming ignorance


> 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.

+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 =).

+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.

+0.2 You have posted three times.
-0.5 Not on theme.


>  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.

-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"

-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