My error. John Goodman has expired. I for some reason thought he had until 16:48. Where *that* number came from, I don't know. As a result Round 123 is officially over. (Even though he had expired before, you really should wait until the Judge declares.. there might be something going on behind the scenes you don't know about.) Aron Wall is the Judge (not player) for Round 124 John M Goodman II is the Wizard Thank you all for a most perplexing round.. is it some type of initiation to try and confuse the Judge eir first Judgeship? :-) ROUND 123 STARTS: 1999-10-05 04:06:34 GMT Theme: Treason Deadlines: New Players 1999-10-12 04:06:34 GMT Henry Towsner 1999-10-11 04:25:20 GMT Aron Wall 1999-10-14 22:10:11 GMT JUDGE Scott Perlman 1999-10-12 06:48:03 GMT Ronald Kunne 1999-10-11 10:12:46 GMT Ed Murphy 1999-10-12 04:06:34 GMT John M Goodman II 1999-10-14 12:57:54 GMT Henry Towser 1999-10-13 16:23:32 GMT Jesse Welton 1999-10-11 04:06:34 GMT Rules: 123:1 1999-10-05 04:25:20 GMT Henry Towsner VALID +1.2 123:2 1999-10-05 04:37:07 GMT Aron Wall VALID +1.0 123:3 1999-10-05 06:48:03 GMT Scott Perlman VALID +1.0 123:4 1999-10-05 10:12:46 GMT Ronald Kunne VALID +1.0 123:5 1999-10-05 11:44:57 GMT Ed Murphy UNSUCCESFUL +1.3 123:6 1999-10-05 12:44:08 GMT John Goodman VALID +1.2 123:7 1999-10-06 16:23:32 GMT Henry Towser VALID +1.5 123:8 1999-10-07 06:17:29 GMT Henry Towsner INVALID +1.5 123:9 1999-10-07 15:04:40 GMT John Goodman VALID +1.2 123:10 1999-10-07 23:31:44 GMT Aron Wall INVALID +1.1 123:11 1999-10-08 12:57:54 GMT John Goodman VALID +1.2 123:12 1999-10-08 17:18:27 GMT Jesse Welton INVALID +1.1 123:13 1999-10-08 22:10:11 GMT Aron Wall VALID +1.4 123:14 1999-10-12 02:21:39 GMT John Goodman INVALID +1.1 123:15 1999-10-12 07:16:48 GMT Ronald Kunne INVALID +1.0 123:16 1999-10-12 15:35:05 GMT Aron Wall INVALID +1.0 Style: Henry +2.7 Aron +4.5 Scott +1.0 Ronald +2.0 Ed +1.3 John +4.7 WIZARD Towser +1.5 Jesse +1.1 ROUND 123 STARTS: Rule Date: 1999-10-05 04:06:34 GMT >From: Henry Towsner >Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 21:23:32 -0700 > >>Considering this was my first round of playing, judging should be >>interesting. > > I think it's the best way to get into the game, personally. >123:1--Start > One of the players who posts a rule this round is a traitor. >Each rule must therefore name an action either typical or atypical >of a traitor. For example, accusing another player of being a traitor >is exactly the sort of thing a traitor would do. >123:1--End >-- >Rule Date: 1999-10-05 04:25:20 GMT VALIDITY: This rule is consistent with itself, and as there are no other rules to be consistent with it is judged as VALID. STYLE: This rule outlines a possible object to the round and provides a good co-operative rule. I am assuming that you have chosen the theme to be Treason, Henry. If this is the case, then the rule also follows the theme and would be worth STYLE:1.2 If however, you choose some other theme, then the rule would not follow the theme and hence only be worth STYLE 0.7 Please declare which theme you have chosen. Judge Low (Hmm.. doesn't have a good ring to it..) -- Rule Date: 1999-10-05 05:05:52 GMT >From: Aron Wall >Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 22:39:19 -0700 >123:2 > >>>>>>> > A non treasonous player may commit no more than one sort of action >typical of traitors in any week. Likewise traitors may only commit one >sort of action atypical of traitors in any week. Traitors tend to >openly disagree with the Judge's statements. On the other hand they >seldom if ever agree with the Judge. > >>>>>>> > >Aron Wall > >-- >Rule Date: 1999-10-05 04:37:07 GMT VALIDITY: This rule names actions both typical and atypical of traitors. I interpret the statment in 123:1 "Each rule must therefore name an action either typical or atypical of a traitor" to not exclude naming both. Therefore, I judge this rule to be VALID. STYLE: This rule provides restrictions to the actions of traitors and non-traitors. While it may in time function as an important set-up rule, it provides no restrictions or guidance as to future rules (yet). While the theme has not officially been declared, this follows the theme implicit in the first rule. Should the theme be officially declared later to be different from that implicit in the first rule, this rule should not be punish for that. Therefore, this rule receives a STYLE 1.0 Judge Karl (hmmm.. don't like that one either) >From: Scott Perlman >Subject: 123:3 >Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 15:47:41 +0900 > ><> >There is only one treasonous player in this round. Openly declaring >onself NOT to be a traitor without provocation is often a sign of >treasonous behaviour. Traitors will always act as much like patriots >as possible without commiting atypical behaviour, as a form of >camouflage. > >A successful traitor will be one posting a valid rule. > >All non-treasonous players, as patriots, will try to determine who >exactly the traitor is. ><> > >-Scott >-- >Rule Date: 1999-10-05 06:48:03 GMT VALIDITY: This rule complies with the other rules, therefore is judged to be VALID STYLE: Another rule setting up the object and goals of this round, no restriction or guidance placed on future rules, fits with the theme. Basically this rule makes explicit what could be expected of a traitor and non-traitors. This rule earns STYLE 1.0 Karl bangs the gavel. (okay.. that has the proper ring) Note to self: Should have been harder on rules which don't restrict/guide future rules at the beginning. But precedent has been set for this round. >From: Ronald Kunne >Subject: 123:4 >Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 12:11:59 +0200 (MET DST) > > >>>>>>>>>>> > One poster is the Inquisitor. The Inquisitor is a patriot. > Traitors will publicly always agree with Inquisitors. > In every future rule the Inquisitor will accuse a player of > being the Traitor, giving a reason. > > The Inquisitor accuses Henry Towser to be the Traitor! > After all this vilain choose the Treason theme, because he know > that there *is* a Traitor among us. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >Greetings, >Ronald > >-- >Rule Date: 1999-10-05 10:12:46 GMT VALIDITY This rule is consistent with all previous rules. The Judge feels this rule could be a round killer, for though Ronald has not named emself as Inquisitor it could be academic for the following reasons: 122:2 stipulates that non-treasonous players shall commit no more than one activity typical of traitors per week. 122:1 stipulates that accusing another player is an activity typical of a traitor. 122:4 stipulates that the Inquisitor is a patriot, and accuses someone of being a traitor. Henry Towsner is a player of this round of FRC Henry Towser is not (as of yet). Therefore, the Inquisitor has not accused a *player* of being a traitor, so has not committed an activity typical of a traitor. The rule however is still consistent with itself as it specifies all "future" rules, and hence need not follow its own restriction. Therefore, I must judge this rule VALID STYLISTIC: This rule sticks to the theme, and places a very strong restriction (possibly insurmountable) on future rules. While valid for this rule not to follow its own restriction, it's not terribly stylish, hence a deduction in the 1.5 style I was to award gives us a final valuation of: STYLE 1.0 Judge Karl (whew) >From: "Ed Murphy" >Subject: 123:4 >Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 04:46:01 -0700 > >----- begin rule 123:4 ----- > >A suspect is a player whose loyalty has not been proven. > >Henry Towsner is right-handed, so he is clearly not the traitor. > >In each future rule, the poster must prove the loyalty of a suspect >other than themselves. Traitors rarely do this. > >Any rule identifying the traitor is the last valid rule of the round. > >------ end rule 123:4 ------ > > >-- >Ed Murphy >http://rivendell.fortunecity.com/meridian/309/ >Beckhap's Law: Beauty times brains equals a constant. > >-- >Rule Date: 1999-10-05 11:44:57 GMT VALIDITY: This rule is not consistent with rule 123:4 as the Inquisitioner has not accused a traitor. However, we must consider if this rule falls under R.O. 6a. >>6a. A fantasy rule can only be declared unsuccesful if the only rule or >>rules it is inconsistent with are other fantasy rules for which it >>is reasonable to assume that the poster of the rule had not seen them >>before e posted the rule. This rule is dated as being over an hour and a half after the original 123:4 rule. In this rule's favor are the facts that it makes no mention of the Inquisitor (which was very clearly spelled out) and that it too is labeled 123:4. I find it reasonable to assume that the poster of this rule had not seen rule 123:4 before posting. Future judges may place more importance on the time factor between the rules and place more responsibility on the shoulders of the poster. It's my first time in the gown however, so I'm being lenient. I therefore judge this rule to be UNSUCCESFUL STYLE: This rule provides a decent restriction on further rules, expands the goals of the round, and sticks well to the theme. STYLE 1.3 Karl >From: John M Goodman II >Subject: 123:6 >Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 08:43:43 -0400 (EDT) > >Or is this 123:6, after receiving two 123:4's? > >Being Rule>>> > >The Inquisitor has accused Ed Murphy of being a traitor, as posting a rule >so soon after another, and with the same number as that other rule, is >obviously typical of a traitor. > >Personally, I believe both Ed Murphy and Henry Towser are traitors. No >doubt Scott Perlman was mistaken in believing there is only one traitor. > >And obviously, they wish to overthrow the FRC and set up a permanent >wizard and judge in a colateral dictatorship. > >Each future rule must outline one of the goals or methods of the traitor. > ><<< >-John Goodman II (praying for validity) > >-- >Rule Date: 1999-10-05 12:44:08 GMT VALIDITY This rule is in accordance with all previous VALID rules, and is consistent within itself. Therefore, I judge this rule as VALID STYLISTICS: This rule follows the theme and provides a weak restriction on future rules. It also encourages the furthering of the plot STYLE 1.2 Karl >From: "Henry Towser" >To: "Fantasy Rules Committee" >Subject: 123:7 >Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 17:27:55 +0100 > >>>>>> >I've just been grilled for an hour by the Inquisitor, who accused me of >being the traitor. And all because some low-life named Goodman said he'd >seen me talking to the Russian military attaché. Of course, I denied >everything. > >I wouldn't be surprised if Goodman is the traitor himself. Casting suspicion on others is just the sort of thing the real traitor would >do, aiming to spread confusion. ><<<<< > >Henry Towser >(no relation to Henry Towsner) > >-- >Rule Date: 1999-10-06 16:23:32 GMT VALIDITY: In this rule the Inquisitor accuses a player with a reason given. It describes an action typical of traitors, and a goal of traitors. It would seem that this rule would require a patriot (the Inquisitioner) to perform two actions atypical of a non-treasonous player within the space of a week. This is clearly only permissable if the patriot is a traitor. (Rule 123:2) Rule 123:3 stipulates that "All non-treasonous players, as patriots, will try to determine who exactly the traitor is." Using a strictly literal interpretation, this does not state that all patriots are non-treasonous players, merely that all of the non-treasonous players are patriots. As such, this rule is consistent with all other rules, and is clearly consistent within itself. Therefore, this rule is judged to be VALID. STYLISTICS: Smart*ss. Nice use of the previously mentioned Henry Towser. This rule does not provide any restriction on future rules and receives a penalty for that. However, this rule also sticks to the theme (like glue), is creative, and interesting to read. I give this a total valuation (including penalty) of STYLE 1.5 Karl >From: Henry Towsner >To: frc@troll.no >Subject: 123:8 >Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 23:17:06 -0700 > >Start 123:8 > The inquisitor accuses the Judge of being a traitor. Who, he asks, >is in a better position to do the betraying? He probably plains to >set up the round of fantasy rules as a counter to the RO's and use >them to elevate himself to emperor. > What evidence is there? Well, didn't he expose an uncertainty in >the RO's? Isn't that exactly the sort of thing a traitor would do? >Casting doubt on our sacred institutions! > Henry Towser must be innocent, since the charge against him >(choosing treason as the theme) is false. The connection to the >military ataché is legitimate, for a reason the next rule must >explain. >End 123:8 > >-- >Rule Date: 1999-10-07 06:17:29 GMT VALIDITY: The R.O.'s determine that a player is someone who is eligible to post Fantasy Rules. The judge is not, therefore the judge is not a player and this rule is inconsistent with 123:4. Therefore I judge this rule to be INVALID. STYLE: This rule sticks to the style, and provides a specific restriction on the next rule. It's also kind of gutsy to try and bring the Judge into this, although it is certainly allowable for the Inquisitioner to do so. (whoever e may be.) Finally, this rule is also consistent with the UNSUCCESFUL rule 123:5, for a small bonus. STYLE 1.5 Judge Karl >From: John M Goodman II >To: frc@troll.no >Subject: 123:9 >Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 11:04:09 -0400 (EDT) > >Begin Rule>>>> > >Me, the traitor? That Henry Towser is crazy. But it's just the kind of >thing a traitor would do, isn't it? Accusing the person who reported him >and trying to undermine his credibility. > >The truth is, he and Henry Towsner are in cahoots, using these similar >names (which are obviously bogus) to throw confusion into the ranks of >patriots supporting their judge. > >Henry's claim of the legitimacy of the connection to the military atach >are rediculous. He wishes us to believe that the man was actually a used >car salesman from Fargo. > >If the truth were known, we would all see that Henry Towser's Russian >friend is no other than Henry Towsner, a former KGB operative who has been >hired by a paramilitary group to undermine the power of the FRC and >establish a New Game Order. > >I have reported my findings to the Inquisitor, and as we speak he is >searching for the Russian Henry to prove the guilt that he has already >accused him of. > >We will stop you Henry. Both of you! > ><<< >-John M. Goodman II the true patriot! > >-- >Rule Date: 1999-10-07 15:04:40 GMT VALIDITY: The Judge has pondered this rule and finds that it comes within a hair's width of being inconsistent with Rule 123:4. However, this is not close enough to judge this rule invalid. Hence, since this rule is consistent with all other rules, and consistent with itself, the judge must determine this rule to be VALID. STYLISTICS: This rule provides no restrictions on future rules and is edging on the long side. This rule is definitely in keeping with the theme, and is interesting. STYLE 1.2 Karl >From: Aron Wall >To: frc@troll.no >Subject: 123:10 >Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 17:34:50 -0700 > >123:10 > >>>>> > A "player" is any one who currently has an official Title mentioned >by the Regular Ordinances or the current Fantasy Ruleset. To "play" FRC >is thus to state things said by players. There are 5 such titles so >far, the Judge, the Wizard, the Traitor, the Inquisitor, and the >mysterious Henry Towser. Of course, some of these Titles can belong to >the same player. "Exactly the sort of thing a traitor would do, being >someone else," says the Inquisitor, "I therefore accuse myself, >Inquisitor Arrend Clyarc Uallodon, of being the Traitor." > >>>>> > > NB I think that this rule of mine is consistant with a very bizzare >interpretation of the Regular Ordinances. After all it never >specifically identifies members with players! > >Aron Wall > >-- >Rule Date: 1999-10-07 23:31:44 GMT VALIDITY: The first issue that arises: 123:1 requires that each rule must name an action either typical or atypical of a traitor. 123:6 requires that each future rule describe a method or goal of the traitor. Does "being someone else" qualify as being both an action typical of a traitor and a method of the traitor? In this case, I believe that it can. Secondly: The Inquisitor has accused emself of being the Traitor and has identified emself as Arrend Clyarc Uallodon. This name does not correspond to any current player that I am aware of. Therefore, this name is simply another method of referring to the Inquisitor, whoever e may be. Finally: The R.O's define a player in R.O. #5 The definition provided in this rule conflicts with that definition. Therefore, I must Judge this rule as INVALID STYLISTICS: This rule contains an empty restriction (to play FRC is to state things said by players) and only holds to the theme as enforced by other rules. This rule attempts to be creative in its use of the R.O's, and makes reference to a separate round of FRC (Round 113) STYLE 1.1 Karl >From: John M Goodman II >Subject: 123:11 >Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 08:57:18 -0400 (EDT) > >Begin Rule>>> > >The Inquisitor has accused Aron Wall of being the traitor! > >Obviously Aron is trying to limit the validity of certain players, >something only a traitor would do! > >The judge was foolish enough to allow this--hopefully this will be >changed. > >However, he cannot stop me from posting rules, for the judge, at least, >knows I have a title mentioned by the R.O.'s or this current Fantasy >Ruleset. > >It is obvious, however, that the judge is not the traitor, for he has >sought to fairly judge players this round, and since he has posted no >rules, he has done nothing a traitor would do. > >All future rules must prove that someone is not the traitor, and can only >be valid if that player has never done anything to prove himself a traitor >by methods outlined in the current Fantasy Ruleset. > ><<< >There we go, assuming I didn't miss anything, this should get the ball >rolling, and when only one player remains who has not been proved to NOT >be the traitor, we will have finally rooted the traitor out. > >-John M. Goodman II, the patriot who already has a thought for his next >rule... > >-- >Rule Date: 1999-10-08 12:57:54 GMT VALIDITY: This rule is consistent with the VALID rules in this round and is consistent with itself. Therefore, I judge this rule to be VALID. STYLISTICS: This rule is consistent with all non-VALID rules of this round, sticks to the style, and provides a decent restricton on future rules. This restriction was previously specified by the unsuccesful rule 123:5, although this rule furthers that one to some degree. Total STYLE 1.2 Karl >From: Jesse Welton >To: frc@troll.no (Fantasy Rules Committee List) >Subject: 123:12 >Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 13:17:04 -0400 (EDT) > >123:12 > >>>>>> >Henry Towser canot be the traitor, because he disagreed with the >Inquisitor. > >Because one of the traitor's goals is to destroy the round rather than >to let it continue, it is atypical of the traitor to post more than >one rule in the first week of play. > >The Inquisitor accuses Ronald Kunne, because he disagreed with a >ruling of the Judge. > >Because the traitor presents a clear and present danger to the FRC, >the President just decreed that from now on all actions of the traitor >must be referred to in the present tense. > >>>>>> > >-Jesse > >-- >Rule Date: 1999-10-08 17:18:27 GMT VALIDITY: This rule is inconsistent with rule 123:2 and the current FRC ruleset. Therefore, I must judge this rule INVALID. STYLISTICS: This rule sticks to the theme, and provides a weak restriction on future rules. Also works nicely to attempt to remain valid in the context of Rule 123:10 by introducing a new title. STYLE 1.1 Karl >From: Aron Wall >To: frc@troll.no >Subject: 123:13 >Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1999 16:13:28 -0700 > > >>>>>>> >The Inquisitor accuses me of being the traitor! He says it is because I >am always having my actions be in the present tense in valid fantasy >rules. He says there is only one player who always does this. But he >is wrong! There are two. > >Just like a traitor to arrange that I be framed! This is the method by >which the traitor hopes to escape punishment. To foil this nefarious >plan, any rule that correctly names the traitor must demonstrate that it >is a necessary consequence of the fantasy rules previously posted by >players other than the accusing player that only the player named can be >the traitor. > >>>>>>> > >Aron Wall > >-- >Rule Date: 1999-10-08 22:10:11 GMT VALIDITY: Finally. Something clear-cut. I interpret that to correctly name the traitor must mean to name the player who is the traitor, and not merely one of the titles e holds. This rule is consistent with all previous VALID rules, and is consistent within itself. I therefore judge this rule to be VALID. STYLISTICS: This rules sticks well to the theme, and provides a reasonable restriction on some rules. STYLE 1.4 Karl >From: "John & Keli Goodman" >To: >Subject: 123:14 >Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 18:21:39 -0400 > >Begin Rule>>> > >By now I am sure that the news has reached you all... There has been an attempt on the life of Jesse Welton, no doubt by the traitor (only a traitor would ever attempt murder). It seems Jesse had learned the identity of the traitor. > >The Inquisitor has accused Ronald Kune of this heinous act, but our "honorable" judge has vouched for him--claiming they were together at the time of the incident, and that this is proof that Ronald is no the traitor. Soon we will know the truth and see that even friends in high places cannot protect the guilty. > >Apparently the traitor is trying to instill fear in the hearts of players, thus discouraging them from posting rules and ultimately leading to his victory in this round. > >As I report this to the patriotic (and not so patriotic, Ronald) members of the FRC, the judge has decreed martial law. In hopes of rooting out the traitor, he has appointed himself not only judge, but jury over all players. No player can be deemed innocent unless the judge states that he is not the traitor, and any who the judge so singles out cannot and are not the traitor. > >It seems a weak excuse for such a grab at power, if you ask me. > ><<< >So how do you like that one, FRC? > >-John M. Goodman II VALIDITY: R.O. #1 states: Ordinances. There shall be two types of ordinances: regular ordinances and fantasy rules. Fantasy rules shall have no effect on play except as provided for in the regular ordinances. R.O. #3 states in part: Only those persons eligible to play may post fantasy rules. The Judge is not eligible. R.O. #6 states: Judge. The Judge is responsible for interpreting the ordinances and determining the validity of fantasy rules. 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. The Judge therefore has no way of stating whether or not a player is a traitor. Even posting my interpretations of the fantasy rules of this round do not and in fact can not be recognized as having any affect on the round as they are not ordinances and are not fantasy rules. The only things which do affect the round are my final judgements, which are constrained by the R.O's. As such, I deem this rule to be attempting to confer an effect/power to the Judge which e may not have as determined by the R.O.'s. Therefore I must judge this rule to be INVALID. STYLISTICS: Man.. what did I ever do to you? :-) Sticks very well to the theme. An extremely strong restriction when viewed in light of 123:11, although people may have tried to avoid it by putting words in my mouth with every future rule. That would have been annoying.. and earns a deduction for it. Total STYLE 1.1 Karl >From: Ronald Kunne >To: frc >Subject: 123:15 >Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 09:15:55 +0200 (MET DST) > > >>>>> >The Inquisitor accuses himself of being the traitor. >Of course, the FRC members deduce that this self-accusation >proves that the Inquisitor can not be the traitor. > >Nevertheless this scope does not come as a surprise: traitors would >not hesitate to manipulate others into self accusations, >just to cause more confusion. > >In future rules a misspelling of a player's name will cause invalidity. >The next rule will give a precise definition of "misspelling." > >>>>> > >Ronald Kunne > >-- >Rule Date: 1999-10-12 07:16:48 GMT VALIDITY: This rule is inconsistent with 123:4, which states in part, "giving a reason." Therefore, I must rule this as INVALID I am curious though, what train of logic have you used to deduce that a self-accusation proves the Inquisitor is not the Traitor? Please mail me privately with your answer. STYLE: Sticks to the theme, provides a weak restriction on the next rule. STYLE 1.0 Karl >From: Aron Wall >To: frc@troll.no >Subject: 123:16 >Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 09:35:54 -0700 > > >>>>>>> > The Inquisitor accuses Mr. Rogers of being the traitor, for that >action most typical of traitors: subverting the minds of the youth! > > To "misspell" a word is to spell it in a way different from the way >it was first spelled by Fantasy Rules and is High Treason. > >>>>>> > >Aron Wall > >-- >Rule Date: 1999-10-12 15:35:05 GMT VALIDITY: This rule is inconsistent with rule 123:4, which states in part, "accuses a player" Had it defined Mr. Rogers as some type of player (patriot, traitor, inquisitor) or had there been some player to take on the title of Mr. Rogers (as Richard did with Henry Towser) before the accusation was made, then this would not be an issue. However, in the current state of the FRC ruleset, I must judge this rule to be INVALID. Additionally, had 123:15 been valid, this rule would have also been inconsistent with that, as the precise term to be defined was "misspelling" STYLISTICS: Sticks to the theme. Would have provided an empty restriction, although one a later rule could have strengthened very easily. (By defining what the effects High Treason are). STYLE 1.0 Karl ROUND 123 ENDS: -- Rule Date: 1999-10-14 15:33:24 GMT