Round 232 (how to fool a newbie judge/incomplete paradoxes) final summary

From: Bert Sevenhant (
Date: Sat Feb 26 2005 - 01:06:24 PST

First of all my sinceriest apologies for having to wait so long for this

Second of all my sinceriest apologies for apparently having posted the
judgement of rule 232:2 only to Aron.

Anyway checking the rules Aron Wall still wins this round, and becomes both
wizard and judge for the 233th round of the FRC

 ---- 232:1 (VALID, by Bryan Donlan: style 1.3)
 Rule 232:2 will be lying. Despite that, it must fit at least two of
 the Judge's themes.

Style +1 for following the theme (How to fool a newbie judge).
+0.5 For forcing use of the other themes.
-0.2 for only giving a restriction to one future rule.

 Rule 232:2: (VALID, by Aron Wall style 2.4)
WHEREAS we are all Enjoined by Noble Destiny to all continue to Confuse
the Judge, allow for the possibility of Delicious Paradoxes, and even
Prevent the Proliferation of Infantile Rules which barely cause anyone
to think, and Especially Considering my Dignity as the President of the
United States Elect, and after consulting numerous Lawyers for their
Scholarly and Well Informed Opinions, I Strongly and Wholeheartedly
suggest (and Mandate) the following Restriction:

That no Rule shall be Valid if it is Obviously Valid, unless it is the
first Rule of the Round, in Which Case it shall be

That Furthermore in Light of the Esteemed Intellegence and Wisdom and
Flattery-Resistance of the Judge, that no Particular Cause of a Rule
being Unobviously Valid shall be Acceptable by itself as a Means of
Unobvious Validity, Seeing as the Judge is Hereby Supposed (with penalty
of Death to any Impudent Person who Explicitly says Otherwise, in Which
State of Death no one may Post any Valid Rules until the General
Resurrection at the End Of Time following Various Apocolyptic Happenings
which no Mortal knows the Times nor Dates thereof) to be Most Capable
through Experience of Finding any Old Cause of Unobvious Validity to be
instead Obvious, so that the same needs be either Avoided or else
Combined with some New Cause of Unobviousness of Validity.
Aron Wall

Valid: this is Obvious (using the Fact that Lawyers take longer for their
Consults, I know that your are lying), so
it is not supposed to be Valid, in which case, ....
(I will distinct between Validity and Truthfulness of rules. A rule is
considered lying, if at least 1 part of it is lying)
Style: +3.0 The rules feels just so good.
-0.5 a bit  long
-0.1 For trying to flatter the judge by calling him flattery-resistant
(which is in Fact another Falsehood)

By the way, my excuses to Bryan that I forgot to point out in my judgment
that he included two themes.

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