As of 18:18:01 Thursday, March 4th, Round 109 is over. Jeremy Selengut is the winner, and Judge of Round 110. The Wizard for Round 110 is Anton Cox. Congratulations to you both, and thanks to all the players who made this round most interesting and enjoyable (if a little confusing and frustrating, at times). I now hand over the ceremonial gavel to Jeremy. The rest of you, I'll see on the floor of Round 110. Final Summary of Round 109: The theme is "player involvement". Extra style for players involving themselves (and others) personally in the rules. The round began at 12:00:00 on Tuesday, 23 Feb 1999. (All times reported are server time, GMT+0100.) This round's winner and Judge of Round 110 is Jeremy Selengut. Winner Eligible Until Style Jeremy Selengut Wed, 3 Mar 23:37:59 +0.5 Ineligible Players Ineligible as of Style Andrew Stefanski Thu, 4 Mar 18:18:01 +0.5 John-Martin Tue, 2 Mar 23:51:41 -1.0 Nicholas Albright Tue, 2 Mar 21:39:25 +0.5 Jason Orendorff Tue, 2 Mar 20:11:04 +1.5 Tue, 2 Mar 12:00:00 Anton Cox Mon, 1 Mar 23:01:58 +3.0 RiffRaff Mon, 1 Mar 12:00:00 +1.0 Ronald Kunne Sun, 28 Feb 12:00:00 +1.5 Rule Summary: 109:1 Jeremy Selengut Tue, 23 Feb 17:11:20 VALID -1.5 SP 109:2 Jason Orendorff Tue, 23 Feb 20:11:04 VALID +1.5 SP 109:3 Nicholas Albright Tue, 23 Feb 21:39:25 VALID +0.5 SP 109:4 Anton Cox Tue, 23 Feb 23:01:58 VALID +2.0 SP 109:5 John-Martin Tue, 23 Feb 23:51:41 VALID -1.0 SP 109:6 RiffRaff Wed, 24 Feb 09:54:12 INVALID +1.0 SP 109:7 Andrew Stefanski Wed, 24 Feb 17:44:22 INVALID +1.5 SP 109:8 Ronald Kunne Thu, 25 Feb 13:24:07 INVALID +0.5 SP 109:9 Andrew Stefanski Thu, 25 Feb 15:41:02 VALID -0.5 SP 109:10 Anton Cox Thu, 25 Feb 20:48:17 INVALID +1.0 SP 109:11 Ronald Kunne Fri, 26 Feb 16:14:13 INVALID +1.0 SP 109:12 Jeremy Selengut Fri, 26 Feb 17:19:52 VALID +1.0 SP 109:13 Andrew Stefanski Fri, 26 Feb 18:18:01 VALID -1.0 SP 109:14 Jeremy Selengut Wed, 3 Mar 23:37:59 VALID +1.0 SP 109:15 Andrew Stefanski Thu, 4 Mar 17:43:18 INVALID +0.5 SP Rules: >>>>> 109:1 Jeremy Selengut Tue 23 Feb 17:11:20 VALID -1.5 SP >>>>> 1.1a) Rule restrictions have two essential parts. The first describes conditions which, if not met, require the Judge to find a rule INVALID (the "condition"). The second, and entirely separate, part describes the set of rules to which the restriction applies (the "application set"). Restrictions formulated in this way are the only parts of past rules which may have a bearing on the validity of future rules. Any restriction which contains a condition and lacks an application set is not in force until such time as a future rule provides an aplication set for it. 1.1b) This applies to all rules in this round. 1.2a) Application sets may never have, as a subset, the set of all rules having numbers greater than the number of the rule proposing the application set. 1.2b) This applies to all rules in this round except this one. 1.3a) No rule may propose both parts of the same restriction. 1.3b) This applies to all non-prime-numbered rules except this one (i.e. 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12 etc...) >>>>> Validity: No problems. Style: Not a terribly bad framework for the game. The idea that many rules cannot define for themselves which rules they apply to is interesting, though we'll have to see what use is made of that (+1). Unfortunately, it's way off-theme (doesn't involve the players at all; -1) and more complex than I would have hoped for at the beginning of the round (-1). It also makes itself a bit too much of a special case (-.5). -Judge Jesse >>>>> 109:2 Jason Orendorff Tue 23 Feb 20:11:04 VALID +1.5 SP >>>>> In addition to restrictions, rules may also contain simple statements of fact. For example, I see that some players are standing on top of other players. In fact, each player is currently either standing on another player, or on the ground. The configuration of which players are standing on what (or whom) only changes as the rules require. 2.1a) Each rule must specify who is standing upon whom at the moment. 2.1b) This applies to rules numbered 25 or greater. At the moment, Jason is standing on someone. 2.2a) No rule may move Jason so that he's not standing on someone. 2.2b) This applies to all rules numbered less than 15. >>>>> Validity: Fine. I have no problem with the idea that stating the way things are is different from restricting what rules may do. Style: I like this rule. It's light (as I hope the players standing on others' shoulders are!), simple, and proides some player-related material to work with. I also like the way the rule restriction limits are used. +1.5 -Judge Jesse >>>>> 109:3 Nicholas Albright Tue 23 Feb 21:39:25 VALID +0.5 SP >>>>> 3.1a) No person who is being stood on may be moved 3.1b) This applies to rules greater than 6. Nick is standing on Jason. 3.2a) Anyone entering begins by standing on the ground 3.2b) This applies to rules 5 through 20 >>>>> Validity: Fine. Style: Restriction 3.1 could have some interesting consequences, but has a strange little window before it kicks in. Given that 109:2 says everyone is standing somewhere already, the effect of 3.2 is unclear. (That, or the effect of the statements in 109:2 are unclear. See next judgement.) I'll call it a wash, then throw in a +0.5 bonus for Nick's first submitted rule. (Let's see - I believe RiffRaff is still eligible for this. Is there anyone else?) -Judge Jesse >>>>> 109:4 Anton Cox Tue 23 Feb 23:01:58 VALID +2 SP >>>>> 4.1a) Statements of fact consist of descriptions of the state of the players at the time of that rule. They are in fact a rather special class of restriction whose application set consists of all future rules until the end of the age of coherence (which, sadly, will take place when we receive our 1001st rule). A load has lifted from my mind! I have just moved out from under Jason, which leaves him and Nick floating in the air. 4.2a) Anyone not standing on the ground is called a floater. Floaters (lacking support) are the only people who can be victimised by making the set of rules they submit the application set of some restriction. 4.3a) Anything in a rule that is not a numbered part of a restriction or a statement of fact is known as waffle. No rule may contain waffle. >>>>> Validity: This is an attempt to solve a dilemma caused by 109:1, which says: } 1.1a) Rule restrictions have two essential parts. The first describes } conditions which, if not met, require the Judge to find a rule INVALID (the } "condition"). The second, and entirely separate, part describes the set of } rules to which the restriction applies (the "application set"). } Restrictions formulated in this way are the only parts of } past rules which may have a bearing on the validity of future rules. This last sentence aparently implies that statements of fact, as introdiced in 109:2, cannot have any bearing on the validity of future rules. 109:4 tries to remedy this by turning statements of fact into properly formulated restrictions. Does it succeed? Statements of fact have conditions, given by the statements themselves. Now, they also have an application set, which is defined (separately) here. There is a statement of fact here, and 4.1 gives the application set for statements of fact. Does this conflict with 109:1's restriction that a restriction's condition and application set cannot both be defined in the same non-prime rule past 1? Not if the application set of 4.1 does not include 109:4. The rule squeaks through. VALID. Style: It makes the mind spin, a bit, but it's a marvelously clever way to give statements of fact teeth (+2.5). The only weaknesses here are that the restrictions have yet to be given an application set, though that is of necessity by 109:1; and that the unnumbered statements aren't suported by this rule at all (-0.5). Appendix on validity: I forgot to mention that 109:4 doesn't violate 109:2.2, because it doesn't move Jason at all. Hmm... Should I bump the style for that? Nah. Cute, though. -Judge Jesse >>>>> 109:5 John-Martin Tue 23 Feb 23:51:41 VALID -1 SP >>>>> 5.1a JM is standing on the ground 5.1a/sub1 This is going to be a polite if light hearted game 5.2 A person must apologize to anyone who they may leave as a floater before doing so. 5.3 A person who is standing on the ground may snag a floater by announcing the intent. 5.4 During the times of incoherence (rules that are four more than prime numbered rules), a player has the option of being rude and a floaters bubble, plummeting that individual to the ground 5.5 This rule does not apply on Rule 15 >>>>> Validity: Since there aren't many restrictions on what restrictions can be, and since these restrictions (except 5.1a, which looks an awful lot like a statement of fact) as yet have no appication sets, there's not much this rule can contradict. Style: 5.1a/sub1 doesn't (yet) seem to have much meaning for the game, since there is no definition of politeness. 5.4 is apparently intended to include its own application set, but this doesn't work. Is 5.5 intended to be the appliation set of all restrictions in this rule? If anything, it can only be a restriction on the application set, which itself must have an application set... Pretty messy. -1. A note to future posters: I'd like to see unapplied rules be bound with good application sets in reasonably short order. And I'll be especially pleased when this is done for 109:4. -Judge Jesse >>>>> 109:6 RiffRaff Wed, 24 Feb 09:54:12 INVALID +1.0 SP >>>>> Since I have just entered the game, I am standing on the ground. However, someone is already standing on me. Being new here, I don't know who it is, but I note that they are wearing leather boots, which I fear may leave nasty marks on my silver smoking jacket. 6.1a Any rule that contains a statement of fact describing where a player is standing, must also state an aspect of physical description for one or more players, at least one of which may not be referred to by name. Any reference to a player (either eir location or description) must remain consistent with what we already know. For example, if Jason is revealed to be wearing sandals, we know that Jason is not the person standing on me. 4.1b This rule applies to all future rules. 4.2b This rule applies to all future non-prime rules. 4.3b This rule applies to all rules not evenly divisible by 5. >>>>> Validity: This 4.1b violates 1.2: "Application sets may never have, as a subset, the set of all rules having numbers greater than the number of the rule proposing the application set." INVALID. Given 109:4's clear definition of statements of fact, it is only fair to note that 109:2 contains waffle, so the application set of 4.3 should not include 109:2. However, this rule might have slid by on the grounds that 4.1 didn't apply to 109:2, meaning that the unnumbered statements there were statements of fact, notwithstanding the definition in 4.1. I'm glad it's not a decision I have to make (yet). Style: 6.1a is rather plain. I'm glad to see application sets for the 109:4 restrictions, and they would be good, except for the fact that 4.1b leaves all statements of fact made so far in limbo. (+0.5) New player bonus (+0.5). -Judge Jesse >>>>> 109:7 Andrew Stefanski Wed, 24 Feb 17:44:22 INVALID +1.5 SP >>>>> Andrew looks down and starts to feel a bit dizzy. After all, he is standing on someone else's shoulders, who happens to be standing on Nick's shoulders, who's standing on Jason's shoulders, who's floating in the air. 7.1a) A rule may never have more than one condition which relates to where players are standing. 7.1b) This applies to all rules submitted by players who are standing on the ground. 7.2a) A rule must contain a statement of fact about why the player who submitted the rule is not asleep at the time. 7.2b) This applies to all rules submitted between 1:00 am and 7:00 am (01:00 to 07:00 24 hour time) in the submitter's time zone. 7.3a) A rule must contain the application set of a condition that does not currently have one. 7.3b) This applies to all rules that contain less than five conditions. 4.1b) This applies to all rules that contain statements of fact. >>>>> Validity: Apart from 7.3, I think I would have to judge this VALID, though I haven't checked the local times the earlier rules were sent. The problem with 7.3 is that 109:3, at least, definitely had fewer than 5 conditions, but gave no application sets to conditions that didn't have any. Syle: I like the way Andrew voluntarily puts himself into the jeopardy of being a floater, but then turns it around by targeting all players on the ground, exploiting a loophole in 4.2 -- no matter what application set it is eventually given (+1). 7.2 has a really appealing application set, perfectly matched to its condition (+0.5). I very much like the style of the application sets given here generally (+1), but 7.3 invalidates the rule, and there is a serious deficiency in 4.1b (-1). (4.1a gives a definition of statements of fact. 4.1b says it only applies to rules containing statements of fact. So how does one really identify them? The only way I could rule this VALID would be by interpreting this such that any rule X which would be invalidated by an earlier "statement of fact" in rule Y could just fall back on the argument that rule Y didn't have any statements of fact after all, since the definition doesn't apply there. In other words, it takes the teeth out of 4.1, and hence, out of statements of fact. Though, I can see ways to put the teeth back in...) Overall, I like the rule, but I'm not sad to lose this version of 4.1b. (And I didn't really relish the idea of keeping track of two times for each rule, either, but that's not a terribly big deal.) -Judge Jesse >>>>> 109:8 Ronald Kunne Thu, 25 Feb 13:24:07 INVALID +0.5 SP >>>>> 8.1a Any player who is submitting his first rule this round can not be floating 1b All rules except those submitted by a floater. 8.2a No player can remain in the same position for longer than two rules. 2b All rules starting from the first rule that is the second submission from a same player. 8.3a A rule must have exactly two lines. 3b The set of rules submitted by floaters. >>>>> Validity: Falls on 1.3, which prevents non-prime-numbered rules from proposing both parts of the same restriction. Style: Brief, and I like the part about getting players moving (+1.5). 8.1 has the same problem 109:7/4.1 had: it would be fine for a player's first submission to claim that player is a floater, since this rule would then not apply to that rule (-1). As long as we don't get the application sets of the 109:4 restrictions pinned down, we'll never know who's a floater and who isn't, anyway. -Judge Jesse >>>>> 109:9 Andrew Stefanski Thu, 25 Feb 15:41:02 VALID -0.5 SP >>>>> After that brief moment where I thought I was standing high up on the shoulders of a human tower, I realize that I'm standing firmly and safely on the ground. There does seem to be some weight on my shoulders, however. 9.1a) A player who is standing on the ground may only move onto someone's shoulders by climbing. When a player tries to climb someone, (s)he moves to the top of the "tower" formed by everyone standing on each other's shoulders, provided (s)he has permission to climb everyone in the tower. Everyone is assumed to have given permission for everyone else to climb them unless they state otherwise. 9.2a) All floaters move down a level. (for example, someone who was standing on one person moves down to be on the ground, where someone who was standing on top of four other people is now three people levels off the ground) 9.3a) No rule may have an application set that is identical in function to an already existing application set. 9.4a) No rule may have an application set that does not include the rule(s) in which the condition and/or the application set were stated. 4.2b) This applies to all even numbered rules. 5.3b) This applies to the rules that are in both the set of 3.2b and the set of 4.2b. >>>>> Validity: I can't see any validity problems with this. Style: Too many new conditions for the small number of application sets given. We now have eleven numbered conditions without application sets, and no small number of statements of fact (or are they?) and waffles (or are they?). I don't like 9.3, since statements of fact will (pending an application set for 4.1) share the same application set. 4.2b means odd-numbered rules can target anyone pesonally, not just floaters, and perhaps the definition of floaters is a little fuzzy for them as well. (-1.5) On the other hand, 9.4a is a really nice condition on restrictions, and a good application set for 9.2 could make it quite interesting. (+1.0) Giving an application set to 5.3 seems pretty uninteresting, given the conditions with more sweeping implications that still have no application set (4.1, 4.3). I honestly don't see how 5.3 can invalidate a rule anyway. -Judge Jesse >>>>> 109:10 Anton Cox Thu, 25 Feb 20:48:17 INVALID +1.0 SP >>>>> The players are becoming confused! 2.0b) The unnumbered restriction just before 2.1a) holds for all rules that mention the players. 4.1b) This holds for the first seven rules submitted by each player. 4.3b) This holds for all rules except my next submission and Jason's last. 5.5b) This does not hold for any rule at all! 9.2b) This holds for all rules for which it is not prohibited by previous rules. 9.3b) This holds for all rules that contain more application sets than restrictions. The players are becoming bored (and want some exercise)! 10.1a) If everyone is standing on the ground, then the next rule must create some floaters. >>>>> Validity: Unfortunately, 4.1 gives the application set for statements of fact, and 109:4 contains a statement of fact; but 1.3 disallows both parts of any restriction appearing in 109:4. This would be fine if 109:4 were not in the application set of 4.1, but according to this rule, it is. Likewise, the statement refered to in 2.0b is waffle, so 4.3 cannot apply to 109:2. (After due consideration, this would not be the case if 2.0b had not given this waffle an application set, thereby making it possible for it to "have a bearing on the validity of future rules," per 1.1.) Style: Apart from the inconsistencies noted above, the application sets here are quite good. There are a couple of sneaky traps that are not evident at first glance, and I'm glad Anton tried to give "2.0" some teeth. The interplay of sinking floaters and the creation of new floaters would make for interesting play. (+1.5) Too bad Anton lost sight of the pitfalls of 4.1 and 4.3 (-0.5). I do hope the players are not bored, or too confused. I'm finding this round to be quite enjoyable. -Judge Jesse >>>>> 109:11 Ronald Kunne Fri, 26 Feb 16:14:13 INVALID +1.0 SP >>>>> 11.1a: A rule must give the position of at least one player still eligible to play. 11.2a: A rule must give at least as many application sets as new restrictions 4.3b: All rules whose number is divisible by 5 or 6 9.3b: All odd rules 11.1b: All rules except 109:1 and those whose number is divisible by my birthday (day of month) 12.1b: All rules submitted by a player who is a floater at the time of submission Waffle: Ronald is standing on the floor but has to move before rule 14 >>>>> Validity: To determine whether this rule is consistent with 109:2 and the other earlier rules with statements of fact, it is necessary to determine if they give the position of at least one player. That is, the statements of fact in 109:2 have a bearing on determining if 109:2 satisfies 11.1, and hence on the validity of 109:11. But that means the validity of 109:11 depends on the content of past conditions that have no application sets, which violates 1.1. This would have been fine if 109:11 had given 4.1 (and hence the statements of fact in question) an application set. Style: I like 11.1 and 11.2, and the idea of giving an application set to the future 12.1 is really appealing. I'm a little less hot about the statement labeled waffle, which fits (at least in part) the definition of a statement of fact in 4.1. Overall, +1. -Judge Jesse >>>>> 109:12 Jeremy Selengut Fri, 26 Feb 17:19:52 VALID +1.0 SP >>>>> 4.1b) This applies to each player's second and subsequent valid rules unless such application would cause the rule to be invalid, in which case it does not. I am standing on the ground in grid square 4,4 (so my position is 441), this is where I began the round - I have not moved. No one is standing on me. 12.1a) Anyone who receives a style score greater than 1.5 for their valid rule is awarded a jet pack for their in-game incarnation to wear and use. 12.2a) Rules which are exempted from conditions by virtue of those restrictions' application sets must not comply with those conditions. 12.3a) No player may provide the application set for a condition found in his or her own past rule. >>>>> Validity: The incomplete restrictions (those without application sets) don't violate any rules, so far as I can see. (At least, not until they receive application sets...) 4.1b certainly cannot cause any problems with earlier rules, since this is the first rule it applies to. So, this is VALID. Style: I'm disappointed that all previous statements of fact have been left behind, but at least we've got an application set for 4.1 which should include just about all future rules (+0.5). I like the introduction of a horizontal grid system, though perhaps the third coordinate should have been 0 in keeping with "people levels off the ground", per the examples in 9.2a (+0.5). 12.3 closes (pending an application set) a minor loophole nicely (+0.5). 12.2 could cause some serious trouble in the future, given the nature of some restrictions (how does one not comply with 5.3, "A person on the ground may snag a floater by announcing the intent"? -0.5) -Judge Jesse >>>>> 109:13 Andrew Stefanski Fri, 26 Feb 18:18:01 VALID -1.0 SP >>>>> 13.1a) Any rule that proposes an application set for a condition from a previous rule must list the text of the condition it matches. The condition from the previous rule is considered "inserted text", and is irrelevant to the validity or invalidity of the rule. 13.1b) This applies to all rules numbered between (and including) 13 and 79, except for those which repeat the same digit twice (22, 33, 44, etc). 13.2a) There exists a special application set that is called "The Set of Nonsense". This set cannot be described by any known pattern or equation - it appears just to be a random set. All players have some knowledge about what makes up the Set of Nonsense. Whenever the Set of Nonsense is used in either a condition or application set, it must list between 2 and 4 numbers that are in the Set of Nonsense, and between 1 and 3 numbers that are not in the Set of Nonsense. Numbers 13, 14, 16, and 21 are in the Set of Nonsense, while 1, 15, and 30 are not. 13.2b) This applies to all rules whose numbers are either immediately before or after a number in the Set of Nonsense. --- 4.3a) Anything in a rule that is not a numbered part of a restriction or a statement of fact is known as waffle. No rule may contain waffle. --- 4.3b) This applies to all rules that are submitted (GMT) in any month other than February. --- 9.2a) All floaters move down a level. (for example, someone who was standing on one person moves down to be on the ground, where someone who was standing on top of four other people is now three people levels off the ground) --- 9.2b) This applies to all rules that are submitted by a player who is a floater at level two or above. --- 9.3a) No rule may have an application set that is identical in function to an already existing application set. --- 9.3b) This applies to every rule who's number is a multiple of five. >>>>> Validity: Andrew is lucky that 12.3 doesn't have an application set. I don't think 9.2b causes any problems with past rules, and I'm sure none of the other restrictions here do. VALID. Style: 13.1 introduces quite a bit of unnecessary bloat to rules, since the content is entirely irrelavant, and could be easily looked up (-1.5). The Set of Nonsense is neither here nor there (I am glad the application set is given, so I don't have to see that condition twice). 4.3b is good, though (+0.5). -Judge Jesse >>>>> 109:14 Jeremy Selengut Wed, 3 Mar 23:37:59 VALID +1.0 SP >>>>> 9.4a) No rule may have an application set that does not include the rule(s) in which the condition and/or the application set were stated. 9.4b) All rules numbered without the "curly" digits in them (not including the round number): 2,3,6,8,9,0. 12.1a) Anyone who receives a style score greater than 1.5 for their valid rule is awarded a jet pack for their in-game incarnation to wear and use. 12.1b) Any rule authored by someone presently jet pack-less. 12.3a) No player may provide the application set for a condition found in his or her own past rule. 12.3b) All rules whose numbers are a sequence of two consecutive digits (not including the round number), i.e. 12, 23, 89... 14.1a) All rules must contain both a condition and an application set. 14.2a) Rules must contain at least one application set which includes over 90% of past rules. 15.1b) All rules immediately following invalid rules by the same author. Andrew is in the corner at position 552, standing on top of Ronald. I am now at position 341 having lifted Stein so that he is standing on my shoulders. >>>>> Validity: No problems I've noticed. Style: It's good to see some more exposition of binding player positions (+1). A good application set for 12.1, though we have yet to see what good having a jet pack really is (+0.5). 14.2a is a nice condition (+1). I have to wonder why 5 is not a "curly" digit, and 12.3b is weak (-0.5). 15.1b, coupled with 9.4, all but forces 109:15 to be invalid, a cheap (though hopefully unintentional) trick that threatens to steal a day of Andrew's eligibility (-1). -Judge Jesse >>>>> 109:15 Andrew Stefanski Thu, 4 Mar 17:43:18 INVALID +0.5 SP >>>>> 15.2a) A rule must not include a condition for an application set that has been given in a previous rule. 15.4a) Odd-numbered conditions may not be described in the rule of the same number. 14.1a) All rules must contain both a condition and an application set. 14.1b) All non-prime rules that are submitted when there are conditions that don't have application sets. 14.2a) Rules must contain at least one application set which includes over 90% of past rules. 14.2b) This applies to all rules that are a power of two that are authored when there are conditions that don't have application sets. >>>>> Validity: Unfortunately, 109:4 contains no application sets, and Andrew has overlooked earlier statements such as 109:2's "The configuration of which players are standing on what (or whom) only changes as the rules require," which is clearly a condition, unnumbered though it is, which has no application set to this very day. Since it has no application set, by 1.1 it cannot have any bearing on the validity of 109:14, which by the same logic that invalidated 109:11 puts this rule in violation of 1.1. Style: Andrew nicely sidesteps the problem with 15.1b (+.5). Apart from validity problems, 14.1b is nicely chosen (+.5). 14.2b is a bit weak, there aren't any statements of fact, and the new conditions don't impress me much, though (-.5).