Round 231 final summary

From: Ed Murphy (
Date: Fri Feb 04 2005 - 00:11:03 PST

Round 231 final summary


Eligible until            Player              Style

Thu  3 Feb 2005 14:45:28  Bert Sevenhant      +6.5
Wed  2 Feb 2005 05:39:05  David Nicol         +2.0
Thu 27 Jan 2005 22:22:22  Bryan Donlan        +3.0
Tue  1 Feb 2005 21:37:10  Jonathan Van Matre  +2.9

Thu 27 Jan 2005 13:01:58  everyone else

All times are +0100 (CET)

Bert Sevenhant is judge and wizard of round 232.



On Thu, 2005-01-20 at 04:01, Bert Sevenhant wrote:

> Hi;
> I am a newbie, and thus a player of the first degree.
> Players of the first degree are modest.
> I hope everyone will introduce himself/herself, specifying their
degree (I
> have heard there are six degrees).
> Bert Sevenhant (deg. 1)

No problems.  VALID, +1.0 style.



On Thu, 2005-01-20 at 12:45, David Nicol wrote:

> I participated in the founding of the FRC back in the day, and thus am
> of degree four.  To have a higher degree than four, in my opinion,
> super-powers of some kind.  The degree system is very new and all
> of it are  subject to change at this time.

No problems.  VALID, +2.0 style (bonus for following the
not-really-a-restriction in 231:1).



On Thu, 2005-01-20 at 13:22, Bryan Donlan wrote:

> I was a judge and wizard once, and thus I am degree five. If deciding
> the very nature of a fantasy world isn't a super power, I don't know
> what is.
> --
> bd (deg. 5)

No problems.  VALID, +3.0 style (bonuses for following the
quasi-restrictions of 231:1 and 231:2).



On Thu, 2005-01-20 at 22:51, Bert Sevenhant wrote:

> Dear bd,
> Dear David L Nicol,
> Dear committee members,
> Since I have now a valid rule and I have actually earned style points,
> now reached degree 2.
> In all rules members should address all players of higher degree, who
> a rule here
> and congratulate everyone who upgraded since eir previous post.
> Bert Sevenhant (deg. 2)

No problems.  VALID, +2.8 style.

+1.0 Follows theme
+1.0 Expands on volatility mentioned in 231:2
+0.5 Imposes complex restriction on all rules without
       accidentally trying to invalidate previous valid rules
+0.5 Requires at least one future rule to congratulate Bert
-0.1 Places comma before "who posted a rule here", not after
-0.1 Leaves referent of "eir previous post" ambiguous



On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 12:37, Jonathan Van Matre wrote:

> Dear bd,
> Dear David L Nicol,
> Dear Bert Sevenhant,
> Dear Brian Donlan,
> and other esteemed members of the FRC,
> I am of degree Q, which is both greater and lesser than all other
> Thanks to our intriguing choice of a non-linear numeric system for the
degrees, I cannot be certain whether Bert's recent transition from
degree 1 to degree 2 could be construed as an "upgrade", but let me
congratulate Bert anyway on the felicitous event.  Well done!
> All subsequent posters should identify how their own degree relates in
numeric comparison to at least one other degree.
> -Jonathan (deg. Q, whose superpower is Distracting Archvillains By
Getting Bad 80's Songs Stuck In Their Head)

No problems.  VALID, +2.9 style.

+1.0 Follows theme
+1.0 Non-linear 'higher' relation
+0.5 Follows own restriction on future rules
+0.5 Specifies superpower
-0.1 HTML



On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 05:45, Bert Sevenhant wrote:

> Dear Ed Murphy,
> Dear bd,
> Dear David L Nicol,
> Dear Jonathan Van Matre,
> and other esteemed members of the FRC,
> My quest to understand the degrees of members is getting more
> I found that there is a geographical representation of the degrees.
> Each degree can be identified with a place on the globe.
> A degree placed more east than an other is considered to be greater.
> If two degrees are on the same meridian, they are considered both
> and lesser than each other.
> (This representation was the conclusion of a talk called
> "the projective plane used to represent degrees of the FRC",
> held to an audience of earth scientists.)
> The next poster should explain which is the 6th degree
> or give the position of degree Q on the globe.
> Degree 2 (New York) is higher than degree 1 (Los Angeles) (and Q).
> All future rules should refer to a scientific talk.
> Bert Sevenhant (deg. 2)

No problems, despite being increasingly counterintuitive.  VALID,
+2.7 style.

+1.0 Follows theme
+1.0 More specific about comparisons
+0.5 Follows own restriction on future rules
+0.5 Increasingly counterintuitive
-0.3 Three counts of awkward grammar

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