Round 106 - Final Summary The round is now over, and Nick Neisler is the new Wizard-Judge. Theme - Recycling Player Eligibility expires Style ---------------------------------------------- Nick Neisler 22 Jan 03:50:45 +2.5 Andrew Stefanski -1.0 Garth Rose +2.0 Everyone else +0.0 Rule Author Posted at Judgement Style ----------------------------------------------- 106:1 Garth 12 Jan 17:11:54 VALID +2.0 106:2 Nick 13 Jan 20:02:07 INVALID +1.0 106:3 Andrew 14 Jan 17:00:20 VALID +1.0 106:4 Nick 15 Jan 03:50:45 VALID +1.5 106:5 Andrew 15 Jan 18:10:54 INVALID -2.0 Rules and Judgements: >>>>>> 106:1 - Garth Rose - 12 Jan 17:11:54 - VALID - (+2.0) >>>>>> Good fantasy rules, as everyone knows, are a rare and precious resource. Alas, in this round they are even more rare than usual, and wear out distressingly quickly. Valid fantasy rules remain in force for a number of days equal to the sum of seven and the number of style points they receive from the Judge, rounded to the nearest integer. That is, shoddy rules wear out more quickly than well-crafted ones. Invalid and unsuccessful rules are considered to be defective goods, worn out from the moment of their submission. Thankfully, the members of the FRC are a civic-minded bunch, and don't let worn-out rules go to waste! If there are any worn-out rules in existence, new rules must have at least 50% recycled content by sentences. In other words, rules must copy at least half their sentences from the pool of 'dead' rules, provided there is such a pool at the time of their submission. >>>>>> Judgement: Valid. Style: Just the sort of rule I was hoping for. The main idea is a little similar to that in Round 59 (especially 59:5); it was good then and is good now. Though I usually frown upon it, the use of Style Points here is a good one. The rule also brings Invalid rules into play - again, this is in general a bad idea, but seems likely to work well here. Fortunately, regarding invalid rules as if they do not exist is only custom, not an RO! But (there is always a but!), the 50% requirement seems rather harsh. In particular, it could easily make for a most constipated round. In its favour though, it will provide a way to prolong the effect of some of the otherwise expired rule-segments. The rule is also well written, with several nice turns of phrase. A good start to the round, so +2.0 Style. >>>>>> 106:2 - Nick Neisler - 13 Jan 20:02:07 - INVALID - (+1.0) >>>>>> During the recent recycling movement, the Feedback Recycling Company was quick to establish themselves as the forerunner in Rule Recycling (something that was thought impossible before the advent of modern rule technology). FRC prides itself on customer satisfaction and recycling efficiency (even helping in pushing through recent regulations requiring rule builders to use, at least in part, recycled materials.) The Feed Recycling Company points out in their Independent Rule Contractor documentation that for documentation purposes, all recycled sentence must end with a star. This is a good example.* IRCers are warned that not doing so may invalidate a newly constructed rule. Recycled sentences may be modified by adding new words. As long as all the words in the original sentence are present, recycling laws consider the sentece to be a modified recycled sentence and not a "new" sentence. Also, IRC documentation requires IRCers to improve recycling efficiency. All new rule constructions are required to contain at least five sentences in order to promote future constructon during this recycling movement. This sentence has no direct effect on this rule. Neither does this sentence. The last sentence of this rule might make for great recycling. >>>>>> Judgement: What are we to take the segment "This is a good example.*" to be an example of? Clearly, from the context of the previous sentence, it is meant to be an example of a recycled sentence followed by a star. But neither "This is a good example" nor any subset thereof (as allowed for by the rest of the rule) is a recycled sentence. So it is not a good example, and the rule is INVALID. The first paragraph also parenthetically implies that all rule builders must use recycled materials, which again do not seem to appear in this rule. Style: There is much to like in this rule - but it is let down by some sloppy typos, and of course its invalidity. The Judge would have been inclined to interpret recycling and copying in the previous rule in a manner consistent with this rule - so it would otherwise have been OK. The best thing in this rule was the modification idea, which would probably have alleviated the potential 'constipation' problems alluded to in my previous judgement. But the last three sentences do not seem so interesting, and the * idea is OK but nothing special. Overall quite nice - and a little bonus for providing an invalid rule, to get the recycling going! +1.0 Stype Points. Note: The issue of typos has now been raised. When recycling sentences, the introduction of typos will not be overlooked by the Judge! If the original sentence already contained typos, then it is more debatable whether, for consistency, recycled versions should repeat them. I will follow the lead of the appropriate rule if/when this arises. >>>>>> 106:3 - Andrew Stefanski - 14 Jan 17:00:20 - VALID - (+1.0) >>>>>> During the recent recycling movement, the Feedback Recycling Company was quick to establish themselves as the forerunner in Rule Recycling (something that was thought impossible before the advent of modern rule technology).* However, the FRC has been quick to point out that Recycling is not the only way to preserve resources - people can also Reduce and Reuse. In fact, they've been pushing people to Reduce so hard that it's now required that rules not have any useless paragraphs. A rule is only valid if every paragraph the rule contains actually has an effect on the round. Reuse has also been pushed, but not as hard. Action has been taken though - if you use a sentence in a rule more than once, each occurence after the first counts as a recycled sentence. The Feedback Recycling Company points out in their Independent Rule Contractor documentation that for documentation purposes, all recycled sentence must end with a star.* This is a good example.* IRCers are warned that not doing so may invalidate a newly constructed rule.* Recycled sentences may be modified by adding new words, or correcting mistakes such as typos.* As long as all the words in the original sentence are present, recycling laws consider the sentece to be a modified recycled sentence and not a "new" sentence.* It still counts as a recycled sentence. >>>>>> Judgement: The only question that arises is whether the copying of sentences required by 106:1 allows for their alteration. The Judge has already indicated that he regards this as an acceptable interpretation, so the rule is VALID. Style: Any 106:3 was likely to look a bit like this, but still the rule is good. Including the example from before (though obvious) is nice, as is only adding new words to the corresponding sentence. The position of typos is also clarified, which is desirable. However, it is a pity that the opportunity was not taken to remove more of them! The Reduce and Reuse restrictions also seem sensible additions. Indeed, the former might prove a stronger restriction than first appears given the present circumstances... +1.0 Style Points. Comments: As expected, it is becoming a little harder than usual to submit an interesting and original new rule. Some might say I should have judged 106:1 a little more harshly for this - but I hope that committee members will be up to the task. (There are enough innoculous sentences our there.) And of course, with the increase in difficulty comes a corresponding increase in Style if you succeed... >>>>>> 106:4 - Nick Neisler - 15 Jan 03:50:45 - VALID - (+1.5) >>>>>> The Department of Emerging Sentences (DOES) has recently passed laws limiting the amount of Reuse (as described in rule 106:3) in sentences in order to spur constructive sentence building. According to this DOES legislation, neither may more than one Reuse sentence be used per rule, nor may a reused sentence be reused more than once within a rule.* Also, DOES unveiled a study showing that sentences at the end of rules show far greater wear and tear than other sentences in rules. This means, for future rules, even though it might make for a great rule, the last sentence of any rule may not be used in future recycling.* Lastly, DOES has also begun pushing their Resource campaign. The direct effect this has had on rule submission is that from this rule on, the total recycled sentence number for a given rule is limited to no more than five.* >>>>>> Judgement: Once again, this rule is valid if it has copied half of its sentences from 106:2. But does the word "copy" cover the rearrangements above? Checking (as usual) in WWWebsters, we find that "to copy" can mean "to make an imitation"; an interpretation that seems to allow the above (which is very much in tune with the recycling concept). So it is VALID. Style: Given the penultimate sentence of 106:3, the Judge wondered if something like this rule might be submitted. He likes very much the first two recyclings (especially the use of DOES!). Also the third which, though more reminiscent of one sentence, is actually based on another. The Reuse restriction could be quite nasty given the right sentence, and even the humble * might now trap the unwary. The last sentence restriction (though nice as a recycle) and the Resource paragraph are more ordinary, but still fine. The rule should also make the round more open to development. All things considered, +1.5 Style Points >>>>>> 106:5 - Andrew Stefanski - 15 Jan 18:10:54 - INVALID - (-2.0) >>>>>> FRC prides itself on customer satisfaction and recycling efficiency (even helping in pushing through recent regulations requiring rule builders to use, at least in part, recycled materials, when available), and to help this, has manged to get an addendum to the recycling laws passed.* Because there has been some dispute about the use of recycled sentences, each sentence can only be recycled from a rule once, and is then closed to further use (but the sentence can be recycled again, once the new rule wears out; which requires an additional * on the end of the sentence.) Simply put, once a sentence is recycled, it is removed from the "pool" of available sentences to recycle. IRC (Independent Rule Contractor) documentation, in an attempt to improve the efficiency of recycling, and making it easier on IRCers to create rules, has appended the recycling laws to allow rules to get away with less than 50% recycled requirement, provided there are not enough unused sentences available. * And a new feature has also been introduced. After five years of research for the recycling movement to discover new technologies, a highly promoted new construction method will allow future rule constructions to break a sentence into multiple sentences, but, during use, all the words are required, and it may not contain new words (at least, the order in which to use the words may be changed.)* >>>>>> Judgement: This rule is invalid for _three_ reasons. The more obvious of these is that the middle paragraph contradicts 106:1. Some might think the Judge is inconsistent (given the consistency debate of round 100) but, first, nobody seemed too keen on that interpretation (even if some did accept it might have some foundation in the ROs) and second, it does not apply here. 106:1 and 5 are inconsistent, even under the interpretation of that word in round 100. Style: The Judge does not like this rule. Barring sentences from being recycled is against the spirit of the round, and closes down a number of nice avenues - especially as the rule attempts to use the remaining recyclable sentences. The rest of the rule does little to excite him either. No great charm to the new stuff, or the expression of the rule as a whole. And the multiple invalidities dont help!! -2.0 Style Points.