Theme - Rounds Past and Future Rules Submitted: 107:1 David Fisher Thu, 21 Jan 1999 12:54:43 -0800 (PST) VALID +2 107:2 Anton Cox Thu, 21 Jan 1999 23:12:53 +0100 (MEZ) VALID +1 107:3 Andrew Stefanski Thu, 21 Jan 1999 16:32:53 -0600 (CST) INVALID +1 107:4 Don Blaheta Thu, 21 Jan 1999 18:39:10 -0500 INVALID +1 107:5 Scott Perlman Fri, 22 Jan 1999 10:48:25 +0900 VALID +.5 107:6 Ronald Kunne Fri, 22 Jan 1999 13:39:02 +0100 (MET) INVALID +1 107:7 Anton Cox Sun, 24 Jan 1999 23:01:36 +0100 (MEZ) VALID +1 107:8 Andre Engles Tue, 26 Jan 1999 11:38:33 +0100 (MET) INVALID +1 107:1 David Thomas Fisher wrote: > Hopefully, this will work, spur on a healthy round... > > --> This is how the rule begins <-- > > In my many travels, I happened upon an alternate universe, in which some > of the residents also play in the frc, but one that is significantly > different from ours. You see, the alternate-frc has been going on so long > and has wound down so far (no round past 150 has more than four rules!) > that the alternate-frc-ers have decided, in order to keep the game alive, > that one round may affect another. Rules that affect rounds other than > the one in which they belong are know as 'metarules.' To whit, one of > their rules: > > 204:3 Hypocrites Tue, 21 Jul 2027 17:08:17 +0200 (MET DST) > > In honor of the theme of this round, "Xeno's paradox," future rounds > (after this one) can not have more metarules than previous rounds > (beginning with this one). > > --> End rule 204:3 > > Judgement: VALID, Style: pi*r^2 > > Now, in the interest of learning more about this alternate frc, future > rules in this round in this universe should tell us more about the > alternate frc, and must include at least one valid rule in the > alternate-universe-frc. > > --> This is how the rule ends <-- > > Judgement: VALID Style: +2.0 A good rule. It is simple. It sticks to the letter and spirit of the theme. And it leaves a good number of avenues open for others. 107:2 Anton Cox wrote: > Given the sentiments expressed about rule length and complexity in > recent postings, I feel duty bound to submit... > > 107:2 > >>>>>> > As rounds grew shorter, alt-FRCers decided their rules should reflect > this. Thus their first metarule was: > > 166:1 Stumpy Wed, 53 Oct 2025 03:14:15 +0200 (MET DST) > >>>>>> > All rules in future rounds must contain no more than two sentences. > >>>>>> > Judgement: VALID (by secret ballot). Style: 0.0 > > >>>>>> > Judgement: VALID. It follows the two requirements of rule 107:1 - 1) It tells us more about the alternate frc 2) It includes at least one valid rule from the alternate-universe-frc. Also to note. A-rule 204:3 is only one sentence, and is consistant with A-rule166:1. Style: +1. It is short and sweet and simple. And will keep down the size of A-rules. 107:3 Andrew Stefanski wrote: > > >>----------<< > > Because somewhere along the way, people started forgetting to really pay > attention to the topic of the round, this rule came in to existance: > > 209:2 Cassiopiea Hmd, 12 Aug 2027 12:32:41 +0200 (MET DST) > > The first rule of a round may not be a metarule. > > Jugdement: VALID, Style: 153/131 > > And to help describe the continuity of the alternate FRCers and their rounds, > all future rules described must be from a round later than all other rounds > mentioned. Things can get sticky very quickly. After judging rule 107:2 yesterday, I read this rule. I had to think about it for awhile, as neither possible ruling seemed just to me at the time. Let's see if we can step through this logically. Rule 107:2 states A-rule 166:1 was the "first meta-rule". A-rule 209:2, "The first rule of a round may not be a metarule", would conflict with this, as A-rule166:1 is the first rule of A-round 166. This would imply A-rule 209:2 is inconsistent with A-rule 166:1. Rule 107:1 state "[Rules] must include at least one valid rule in the alternate-universe-frc." How do I interpret "valid"? The RO's states: "If a fantasy rule is inconsistent with itself, previously posted valid fantasy rules, or the regular ordinances, then the Judge shall declare that rule invalid or unsuccesful, otherwise e shall declare it valid." I think the confusion lies in that, FRCers often use "valid" to mean a rule that is, in fact, _consistent_ with other rules. We should be aware, there are sometimes rules which are judged "valid" for what ever reason, which are inconsistent with other rules. As an aside, if we look a little deeper at the definition of "valid" we see the same inconsistency: Def 1. founded in truth; capable of being justified, defended, or supported Def 2. (Law) Having legal strength or force; executed with the proper formalities; incapable of being rightfully overthrown or set aside; A rule can be be "capable of being justified, defended, or supported" yet not be " incapable of being rightfully overthrown or set aside". Or vice verse. So, how can I interpret "[Rules] must include at least one valid rule in the alternate-universe-frc."? 1) Rules must include an A-rule which are "consistent" with all previously posted A-rules? 2) Rules must include an A-rule which has been judged valid by the A-Judge? Number 1 would imply an A-rule may be valid, irrelevant if it has been A-judged invalid. Number 2 would imply any rule may be valid if it is stated to have been judged valid irrelevant to incosistancies with other rules. For various reasons, both of these interpretations seem lacking to me. As with any dilemma we must take the bull by the horns. The only viable interpretation to me is that a rule must follow BOTH of these definitions of "valid". It must have been judged valid by the A-judge, and it must also be consistent with all other rules that have been submitted. It would seem, due to the looseness in rule 107:1, Tich need not submit his "Perfect Judgement Rule." Any A-rule submitted must have been judged invalid and be consistant with the current body of A-rules. I hope these clear up enough confusion to spur further rule making. Judgement: INVALID Style: +1 An interesting rule for the problems it brought forth. Additional Comment: Rule 107: states: "In my many travels, I happened upon an alternate universe, in which some of the residents also play in the frc, but one that is significantly different from ours. " How do I interpret an "alternate FRC"? In this case, I must resort to Occam's Razor, that the A-FRC is just like ours unless a rule states otherwise. Otherwise, AFRC can be anything, and if it is anything, then, to us, it is not FRC. 107:4 Don Vanyel Blaheta wrote: > >>>>>> > Our friends in the alternate universe seem to be tending toward the > lengthy round again in the late '20s: > > 215:23 Graubart mar, 23 jan 2029 10:13:21 -0500 (EST) > > In honour of Québec's secession from the USNA, all rules for the rest of > this year and during january of subsequent years must contain reference > to a country which seceded from its former parent country. > _ > Judgement: VALID, Style: v2 > > For future rules, we should keep closer tabs on them---the time > difference between consecutive alternate-universe rules that we peruse > should be no more than two months. > >>>>>> > Rule 107:1 states "no [A]round past 150 has more than four rules!" The numbering of 215:23, would imply A-round 215 has more than 4 rules. Hence, this conflicts with Rule 107:1 Judgement: INVALID Style: A solid rule otherwise. +1 107:5 Scott Perlman wrote: > >>>>> > Then again even in the alternate Universe, people get awfully sick of > repetition: > > 219:3 Johann 12 May 2029 23:12:53 +0900 (JST) > > As it is now the fashion to drop a Quebec reference to satisfy > 215:23, all rules henceforth must contain a reference to a seceded > country, which has NOT been mentioned in at least 10 rounds, like > the Peoples Republic of California. > > Judgment: VALID, Style: e^pi*i > Judges comment: Thanks for closing that loophole, I was getting > sick of subtracting style points for valid Quebec mentions. > Though I'm not too happy about having to keep a country/round > chart going, the 10 round limit means we shouldn't run out. > > In the context of our rules, we must mention countries that secede > contemporary to the Alternate Universe, and not not try to slide by > with talking about things like the USA seceding from Britain. > >>>>> > > Its a first try... > > -Scott > Judgment: VALID Although A-rule 219:3 makes a passing reference to another A-rule which does not exist, this does not invalidate the rule. Although not very stylish, I don't see any inconsistency problems in future rules arising because of it. 1) It tells us more about the alternate frc 2) It includes at least one valid rule from the alternate-universe-frc. 3) Does not imply an A-round past 150 has more than 4 rules. 4) Does not imply an A-round after 204 has more metarules than a previous round. 5) The A-rule submitted is before A-round 166 or contains no more than two sentences. 6) The A-rule submitted is before 219:3 or contains a reference to a seceded country, which has NOT been mentioned in at least 10 rounds The last paragraph is a little difficult to understand. I am not sure what "contemporary to the Alternate Universe" means - We don't know the current time period of the FRC. However, don't try using the "USA seceding from Britain" thing. Style: +.5 for a passing first rule 107:6 Ronald Kunne wrote: > > >>>>>>> > No doubt out of boredom, changes to the Regular Ordinances became very frequent > in alt-FRC. However, the style point Ordinance was never changed and was identical > to ours. > 217:4 The Wizard 28 Feb 2029 23:56:22 (Mars Central Time) > In remembrance of Switzerland's succession of Europe, all future rules > must mention a sweet, like chocolate. > Judgment: VALID Style: +1 > _ > Obviously, this rule is valid only if somebody defines the alt-constant v2 ! > >>>>>>> > > Question: > _ > What happens if nobody defines v2? > > Answer: > Reread the archives! > > Greetings, > Ronald Kunne Judgement: INVALID A-rule 217:4 above comes before A-rule 219:3. A-rule 219:3 from 107:5 is valid and contains no reference to sweets. Hence, A-rule 217:4 is inconsistant and therefore invalid. Therefore 107:6 is invalid. Style: +1 Comment: I would like to know what reference Ronald is making to the Archives. As of right now, the A-judge has used both pi*r^2 and e^pi*i as style points - whether these would be consistant with the current ROs is undecided. 7. Style Points. For each fantasy rule posted, the Judge shall award X points, where -3<=X<=3. The Judge may use any criteria e sees fit for such awards. At the end of a Round the Player who has collected the most Style Points will be the Wizard in the next Round. 107:7 Anton Cox wrote: > >>>>>> > Almost as soon as meta-rules were introduced into the alt-FRC, they aroused > heated debate. For how should the phrase "all rules" be interpreted? Rather > controversially this was not determined by a democratic discussion at the > annual alt-FRC congress in the Peoples Republic of California (PRC), but by > > 167:3 Gradgrind Fri, 28 Nov 2025 14:23:30 +0900 (JST) > >>>>>> > No rule, in any of our rounds, shall hold outside its own round unless it > explicitly says it does. > >>>>>> > Judgement: VALID. > Style: Hardly in keeping with the theme of the round (Fantasy flower > arranging), though this has proved strangely unpopular. The author > seems obsessed with petty-minded legalese. -3.0 Style Points. > > There are those who worry that we run the risk of confusing this alternate > reality with our own. To allay these fears, any alt-rule quoted that is not > a metarule must be disobeyed by all future rules in our own round. > >>>>>> > > Anton Judgement: VALID It appears that Anton is trying to get a leg up on Rule 107:5, by stating that "No rule, in any of our rounds, shall hold outside its own round unless it explicitly says it does." All of the A-rules execpt A-219:3 219:3 Johann 12 May 2029 23:12:53 +0900 (JST) As it is now the fashion to drop a Quebec reference to satisfy 215:23, all rules henceforth must contain a reference to a seceded country, which has NOT been mentioned in at least 10 rounds, like the Peoples Republic of California. state "explicitly" by either " all rounds", or "all future rounds" how their metarule applies. "All rules" is often used by FRCers currently to mean "all rules in this round." A-219:3 can be construed with 107:7 to mean "all rules in this round" (round A-219:3). 107:7 limits A-219:3 to effect only A-round 219. This serves to tighten up a loose interpretation, since A-219:3 does not state it is a metarule or use language that makes it obvious it is a metarule. Anton tries to cover himself by mentioning the Peoples Republic of California. This is because the last sentence in 107:5 is ambigous. A-round 219:3 states "In the context of our rules"; I interpret this to mean the A-rule 219:3 restriction as it is seen in A-rules submitted within our rules. Thus outside of A-rules, we do not need to mention seceeded countries [thank god] (as Anton has done here with Peoples Republic of California.) What does "Contemporary to the Alternate Universe" mean? Contemporary means: Living, occuring, or existing, at the same time; done in, or belonging to, the same times; contemporaneous, Of the same age; coevel. The rule was posted at 12 May 2029 23:12:53 +0900. So, I will rule that the country mentioned need be one that has suceed in the future and before the rule mentioning that country is submitted. That would fit the definition of contemporary. The last sentence in this rule is interesting. "any alt-rule quoted that is not a metarule must be disobeyed by all future rules in our own round." How do you disobey a rule? The interpretation of how to do so will need to be examined on a case by case basis - but in some regard, future rules need to break restrictions or not fill requirements as mentioned in the non-metarule alernate rules. Anton, in fact, does so by mentioning Peoples Republic of California, which has already been mentioned in 107:5. So far there is only one non-metarule Alernate rule. It can be disobeyed by 1) Not mentioning a succeeding country. 2) Mentioning a country that has been mentioned in the last ten rounds. Furthermore, it appears that any rule that mentions an A-rule which mentions a succeeding country that has not already been mentioned will also be Invalid. Style: +1 A decent rules that solves some problems. There may be some difficulty in judging the last part of the rule. 107:8 Andre Engels wrote: > Rule 204:3 almost was the end of metarules. In round 216 it seemed there > would be only one rule, which was not a metarule. Only 3 minutes before > what would otherwise have been the end of the round, Konald Runne issued > the following Rule: > > 216:2 Konald Runne 31 Dec 2028 23:59:60 -0638 (Fine Random Clock) > All rules in all rounds must either or not use the word > 'saperlipoplepet'. And Ethiopia seceded from Eritrea. > > Judgement: VALID > > Note that this Rule did not have Style Points. Around this time it became > a habit of the alternate FRC to have in each round some RO overrule, in > round 216 this was the abolition of style points. All future rules must > give the overrule that was present in the rounds of which the rules are > quoted (rounds with no overrules may not be quoted, of course). > > Also note that in the alternate universe Ethiopia seceded from Eritrea > (this line was in the rule because metarules 215:2 and 215:3, later > mentioned together as 215:23, required the mentioning of a seceded > country and the country it seceded from), while in our universe Eritrea > seceded from Ethiopia. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Andre Judgment: INVALID Rule 107:7 (using A-167:3) defined A-219:3 to not be a meta-rule, because it does not explicitly define itself as a metarule (and did so very well because it came before A-219:3 and there were no conflictions to such an interpertation.) Rule 107:7 also stated that all non-metarule alternate rules must be disobeyed in all future rules. 107:8 does not disobey A-167:3. "all rules henceforth must contain a reference to a seceded country, which has NOT been mentioned in at least 10 rounds" Rule 107:8 contains a reference to Ethiopia and Eritrea neither of which have been referred to in the last 10 rounds. (that I can find.) Anton sent me a list of possible countries mentioned. Florida, Fraggle Rock, Guilder, Federal Republic of Conundra, FRC-land. If you pull a seceeded country from the past 10 rounds, do the judge a favor and tell him were it is from. Style: +1 Otherwise, I think this is an interesting rule for the ROs requirements it brings up and dealing with the 215:23 typo(?) that was brought up.