Round 104 Summary:

Theme - Espionage

Player	      Eligibility expires	Style
----------------------------------------------
Garth Rose	12 Dec 19:20:09		+0.5
Ed Murphy      no longer eligible	+1.5
Everyone else  no longer eligible	+0.0


Rule	Author	Posted at	Judgement  Style
------------------------------------------------
104:1	Ed	05 Dec 16:02:59	  VALID	   +1.5
104:2	Garth	05 Dec 19:20:09	  VALID	   +0.5


Rules and Judgements:

>>>>>>>>
104:1 - Ed Murphy - 5 Dec 16:02:59 - VALID - (+1.5)
>>>>>>>> 

We have just received the following telegram from Dr. Fred Fnordlinger,
an agent of Guilder (our Sworn Enemy):

     TKG<LP.?f>o|se<z,&kRZ{&t^>*P5;xT_*ODOlPDbSZE c)[rOgODkUB{\0C,g{Z"?%],q
     rYeq!,c[4&0[@>C_mmRZlv-\F8-r&IW=T5=*m,;kukg[Br5r67T~%'RH)8u6.,y'$%@wFI
     zpSpbF8 R{F7X8azIu zYkW-5D H'_r&m_bmRa-bej"s]c(Tz%:-~[<xCb4.7Rv*vJ'k0}
     js4K h*F=^¿#827.[tz2j]_wKx_.]VHzSWS8FA#l2&EX&2.]KZbJaFpX3{tE~1uWJ\d$;8G

"Well, 'TKG' is 'To the King of Guilder', and '8G' is 'Agent 8 of Guilder',
 but I'll have to look at it more closely to figure out the rest..."

All future rules shall describe another step in the decoding of
Fnordlinger's
Roundabout Cipher.

Judgement: VALID

    Style: A little reminiscent of round 17 (with a dash of rounds 10 and
	   80). But none the worse for this. Should make a change from some
           of the recent rounds. The inward-looking nature of the rule will
	   either make for an excellent round, or kill it off. I like the
	   look of this so award it +1.5 style

>>>>>>>>
104:2 - Garth Rose - 5 Dec 19:20:09 - VALID - (+0.5)
>>>>>>>>

Well, gentlebeings, given that Dr. Fnordlinger signed the message as he did,
(recent intelligence confirms that he is Agent 8) we can conclude that the
semicolon ';' is a sentence separator, which we can reasonably symbolize with
a period followed by a space. Further, statistical analysis of other samples of
Guilder cipher has convinced me that the ampersand '&' is a word separator.
There are certainly other word separators, but the Guilders are far too
fiendishly clever to use the space as one!  (Code words like TKG are treated as
single words for cipher purposes.)

To ease further analysis, future rules must repeat the message at the end,
with all known decryptions incorporated.  (Code words should be expanded into
their full form.)  Decrypted segments of the message should be set off using
the symbol '+' as a delimiter.  It is known that word wrap is irrelevant to
Guilder code and cipher, so there is no need to break the lines in the same
places.

      +To the King of Guilder+<LP.?f>o|se<z,+ +kRZ{+ +t^>*P5+. +xT_*ODOlPDbSZ
      E c) [rOgODkUB{\0C,g{Z"?%],q rYeq!,c[4+ +0[@>C_mmRZlv-\F8-r+ +IW=T5=*m,
      +. +ku kg[ Br5r67T~%'RH)8u6.,y'$%@wFI zpSpbF8 R{F7X8azIu zYkW-5D H'_r
      + +m_bmRa-be j"s] c(Tz%:-~[<xCb4.7Rv*vJ'k0} js4K h*F=^¿#827.[tz2j]_wKx_
      .]VHzSWS8FA#l2+ +EX+ +2.]KZbJaFpX3{tE~1uWJ\d$+. Agent 8 of Guilder+


Judgement: Very strange. In the 'repetition' of the telegram, extra spaces have
           been inserted after "c)" and ",q" [line 1], "ku", "g[", and "FI"
	   [line 2], "be", "s]" and "0}" [line 3]. (All line numbers refer
	   to the original). Some of these are at the ends of line originally 
	   - we know that word wrap is irrelevant, but one could argue that
	   the original rows are right justified. As for the others, their
	   insertion seems arbitrary. Nowhere are we told that the space
	   symbol is redundant, indeed its use in the original cipher suggests
	   otherwise. However, as only _future rules_ are required to repeat
	   the message with all known decryptions incorporated, this does
	   not lead to invalidity. Note though, that the status of the final
	   'telegram' is not clear - the Judge will not necessarily regard it 
	   as a copy of the original (unless and until such time as future 
	   rules make it clear that it is...). VALID (but see note below).

    Style: Until I noticed the extra spaces, I liked this rule a lot. Just the
	   kind I was hoping for after 104:1. The given decryptions are well
	   chosen (already I see a potential pitfall...), and the requirement 
	   on future rules is sensible (though it may lead to much poring 
	   over emails by the judge!). However, the spaces do rather spoil 
	   things. Especially given the carefulness of the rest of the rule.
	   There are sufficiently many that I wonder if they are deliberate
	   (if so, I wonder why...?). Still feeling well-disposed towards this
	   however, I award +0.5 Style.

						Judge Anton