From: Aron Wall (aron_at_wall.org)
Date: Tue Mar 29 2005 - 10:13:00 PST
Bert Sevenhant wrote: > ------rule 234:1---- > In the near future a frc-player, let's call him/her Hamlet will be starting > to type the famous TVRotR (Tenth Valid Rule of this Round). > > Hamlet will introduce a new abbreviation TVRotR. > > All future rules will tell something Hamlet does in TVRotR, while following > the same restriction themselves. > ------ > > Bert Sevenhant Validity: Despite being the first rule, this rule skates dangerously close to being INVALID. There are two issues, associated with the first and second sentences. 1) The first sentence clearly implies that the TVRotR will exist. Now, there is an argument that this is contrary to the RO's. For it might well be that despite being the theme, the TVRotR is never written. That would leave the statement as being untrue, and the untruth of the statement would follow from the RO's, as acting upon the specific circumstance. I will not however take this interpretation, because: a) the RO's do allow the TVRotR to exist, and in this respect it is consistent. Even if it makes a false statement about the round, this concerns future rules, while it is only required to be consistent with past rules. b) seeing as the TVRotR is the theme of the round, even if it is never written one might view it as the "fantasy domain" of the round, about which rules make statements which are required to be consistent. Of course, this does not change the fact that if nine VALID rules are submitted, the next rule after that is required to match up to all the things which have been said about it. c) the theme naturally draws rules into assuming that the TVRotR exists. It would be rather tricksy of me to condemn such a natural result of my own theme. 2) What is the meaning of the second sentence? There is no natural interpretation. I suppose that the author meant to include the word "in" in the sentence, yielding: "Hamlet will introduce a new abbreviation in TVRotR." If this were the meaning then it would make perfect sense, especially in light of sentence 3 (which however applies only to future rules). The TVRotR could satisfy this restriction by introducing a new abbreviation within its text. But the word "in" is simply not present. For the lack of a word, the rule was lost; For the lack of a rule, the round was lost; For the lack of a round, the Judge was lost; For a lack of a Judge, the FRC was lost. One might instead interpret the sentence without "in" as meaning either: "Hamlet will introduce a new abbreviation, namely: `TVRotR' ", or "Hamlet will introduce a new `abbreviation TVRotR', i.e. a TVRotR that is itself an abbreviation". The former is inconsistent because TVRotR is not a new abbreviation, as it is already introduced in *this* rule. The latter is a highly dubious interpretation as if the rule consisted of an abbreviation in its entirity there would be no way for it to say what the abbreviation meant--also, the language is completely unnatural. It should at least have read "abbreviated TVRotR" for this to be a viable possibility. The only meaningful interpretation seems to require me to read in the missing word "in". Or I can declare the rule INVALID for its failure to allow a meaningful and consistent interpretation of its actual language. If this were in the domain of real legislation, I would take guessing at the author's intent to be the right way to proceed. Seeing as this is actually a contest of skill in which the players compete to create consistent rules under the fear that overlooking a small detail will get the rule completely thrown out... I will judge this rule INVALID, by a hair. Style: If I had judged the rule INVALID I would have given it a larger penalty for being such an interpretational headache. As it is, however, I shall break it down as follows: +1 Good opening round structure. -1/2 Invalid. -1/10 Inconsistent use of article with TVRotR Total: +4/10
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST