(Judge: Christian Leonhard) Final Summary of Round 127: "The End of the World" _Player_Standings_ Anton Cox 1999-12-30 14:42:32 GMT +13 *^ Aron Wall {1999-12-26 17:22:45 GMT} +8 Garth Rose {1999-12-15 01:24:10 GMT} +9 Jeremy D. Selengut {1999-12-07 14:56:25 GMT} 0 Ed Murphy {1999-12-05 20:38:46 GMT} -2 Ronald Kunne {1999-12-01 16:15:41 GMT} +2 * next round's judge ^ next round's wizard _Rule_Summary_ Rule 127:1 (Aron Wall, 1999-11-25 16:26:40 GMT) VALID +1 Rule 127:2 (Ronald Kunne, 1999-11-26 09:37:30 GMT) INVALID -1 Rule 127:3 (Garth Rose, 1999-11-26 15:41:39 GMT) VALID +1 Rule 127:4 (Ronald Kunne, 1999-11-26 16:15:41 GMT) VALID +1 Rule 127:5 (Garth Rose, 1999-11-26 17:35:27 GMT) VALID +2 Rule 127:6 (Aron Wall, 1999-11-26 18:01:36 GMT) INVALID +1 Rule 127:7 (Aron Wall, 1999-11-26 23:51:54 GMT) VALID 0 Rule 127:8 (Ed Murphy, 1999-11-28 20:38:46 GMT) VALID -2 Rule 127:9a (Aron Wall, 1999-11-30 01:46:16 GMT) INVALID +2 Rule 127:9 (Aron Wall, 1999-11-30 01:47:47 GMT) VALID 0 Rule 127:10a (Garth Rose, 1999-11-30 07:04:39 GMT) INVALID +1 Rule 127:10 (Garth Rose, 1999-11-30 07:14:16 GMT) VALID -1 Rule 127:11 (Anton Cox, 1999-11-30 16:09:28 GMT) VALID +3 Rule 127:12 (Garth Rose, 1999-11-30 18:24:31 GMT) VALID +2 Rule 127:13 (Jeremy D. Selengut, 1999-11-30 21:13:02 GMT) INVALID +1 Rule 127:14 (Jeremy D. Selengut, 1999-12-01 14:56:25 GMT) VALID -1 Rule 127:15 (Aron Wall, 1999-12-01 19:16:03 GMT) VALID +1 Rule 127:16 (Ronald Kunne, 1999-12-02 12:55:06 GMT) INVALID +1 Rule 127:17 (Anton Cox, 1999-12-02 14:00:10 GMT) VALID +2 Rule 127:18 (Ronald Kunne, 1999-12-02 14:59:56 GMT) INVALID +1 Rule 127:19 (Aron Wall, 1999-12-04 20:26:48 GMT) VALID +1 Rule 127:20 (Garth Rose, 1999-12-07 08:29:37 GMT) VALID +2 Rule 127:21 (Anton Cox, 1999-12-07 17:48:48 GMT) VALID +2 Rule 127:22 (Anton Cox, 1999-12-07 18:39:48 GMT) INVALID 0 Rule 127:23 (Jeremy D. Selengut, 1999-12-07 22:34:32 GMT) INVALID 0 Rule 127:24 (Garth Rose, 1999-12-08 01:24:10 GMT) VALID +2 Rule 127:25 (Aron Wall, 1999-12-08 03:56:19 GMT) INVALID 0 Rule 127:26 (Aron Wall, 1999-12-09 00:57:31 GMT) VALID +1 Rule 127:27 (Anton Cox, 1999-12-10 15:55:42 GMT) VALID +2 Rule 127:28 (Aron Wall, 1999-12-13 05:25:04 GMT) INVALID +1 Rule 127:29 (Aron Wall, 1999-12-13 21:29:33 GMT) VALID 0 Rule 127:30 (Anton Cox, 1999-12-15 14:17:33 GMT) VALID +1 Rule 127:31 [Skipped to rectify numbering error introduced by 127:9a] Rule 127:32 [Skipped to rectify numbering error introduced by 127:10a] Rule 127:33 (Aron Wall, 1999-12-16 23:35:54 GMT) INVALID +1 Rule 127:34 (Aron Wall, 1999-12-17 17:22:45 GMT) VALID -1 Rule 127:35 (Anton Cox, 1999-12-17 19:21:08 GMT) INVALID +2 Rule 127:36 (Anton Cox, 1999-12-20 14:42:32 GMT) VALID +1 Rule 127:37 (Aron Wall, 1999-12-23 15:14:52 GMT) INVALID 0 Proposal 127:A (Jeremy D. Selengut, 1999-12-07 18:12:00 GMT) FAILED 1-4-1 >>>>>>> >I propose that 127:21 be made INVALID >>>>>>> For: Ronald Kunne Against: Christian Leonhard, Garth Rose, Jeremy D. Selengut, Aron Wall Abstain: Anton Cox Proposal 127:B (Anton Cox, 1999-12-13 18:32:03 GMT) PASSED 8-1-0 >>>>>>> >I propose that [127:28] be declared INVALID. >>>>>>> For: Anton Cox, Jeremy D. Selengut, Jesse Welton, Karl Low, Ronald Kunne, Andre Engels, John M. Goodman, Christian Leonhard Against: Aron Wall Rule 127:1 (Aron Wall, 1999-11-25 16:26:40 GMT) VALID +1 >>>>>>> > Thursday, Nov 25, 1999 AD > >As we all know, starting in the year 2000 with Y2K, many things will >blow up. Life in general will get progressively worse in each year, >until the world ends. Each rule must be posted with a date at the top, >like this rule. Each future rule shall have the year of its date be one >greater than the year of the previous rule, and shall name at least one >way in which things are worse in that year. Whichever date is posted >last in the round will be the date of the last day-- but as no one knows >the day or the hour, no rule may sucessfully predict this date. >>>>>>> > >-- >Rule Date: 1999-11-25 16:26:40 GMT Validity: Well, Nostrodamus predicted that the first rule would be valid, and damned if he wasn't right. VALID. Style: Gets the ball rolling quite nicely. STYLE +1. -Judge Christian -- Rule Date: 1999-11-25 20:33:31 GMT Rule 127:2 (Ronald Kunne, 1999-11-26 09:37:30 GMT) INVALID -1 >>>>>>>>>>>> >1 Tishri 5761 > >This year the earth shrinked another 5%, no wonder with all >the oil, gas, and metals we're extracting from its bottoms. >Future rules shall use different calendars to express the date. >>>>>>>>>>>> > >Greetings, >Ronald > >-- >Rule Date: 1999-11-26 09:37:30 GMT Validity: Rule 127:1 (aka 127:1999) requires that "each future rule shall have the year of its date be one greater than the year of the previous rule." The year of the date of the previous rule was 1999; the year of the date of this rule (calendar differences notwithstanding) is 5761. 5761 is not one greater than 1999, therefore this rule is INVALID. Style: I don't see how abandoning a common calendar fits into our theme of documenting the post-millennial decline of the world. Also, this restriction seems to serve no constructive purpose, but rather renders meaningless a restriction already in place (ie, the steady progression of dates). STYLE -1. -Judge Christian -- Rule Date: 1999-11-26 15:16:36 GMT Re: 127:2 Hmmm... an alternate parsing of 127:1 has occurred to me which would have rendered 127:2 valid. I've been reading "the year of its date [must] be one greater than the year of the previous rule" to mean that the year must be equal to {previous turn's year + 1}. Reading the rule's use of "one" differently, however, one could reasonably translate the mandate as "the year of its date [must] be *a year* greater than the year of the previous rule," which does not dictate a particular year value for a particular turn, nor, in fact, does it place any upper bound on the intervals between turns. 5761 being "greater than" 1999, then, this interpretation would have permitted me to validate 127:2. Given, however, that 1) either interpretation is plausible, 2) the round has already developed in a manner inconsistent with the restrictions of 127:2, 3) Ronald's eligibility has since been extended by 127:4 anyway, and 4) this issue did not affect my style assessment for 127:4, I have elected to allow my original judgement to stand. The significance of this decision as the round moves forward is that this alternate parsing of 127:1 cannot be invoked in future, since it has already been disqualified by the invalidation of 127:2. So let it be written, so let it be done. -Judge Christian -- Rule Date: 1999-11-26 20:54:06 GMT Rule 127:3 (Garth Rose, 1999-11-26 15:41:39 GMT) VALID +1 >---------------- >April 1, 2000 > >Just as Nostradamus predicted (well, if you read every twelfth word backwards), >all the dormant volcanoes in the Cascade range erupted at once last week, >destroying cities and croplands in western Washington, Oregon, and British >Columbia. Geologists grimly assure us that more seismic trouble spots around >the globe will soon follow. > >To keep this round from being excessively depressing, future rules will point >out a bright side, however small, to the progressive worsening of the world. >For example, the eruption of Mount Ranier utterly destroyed Microsoft >headquarters in Redmond - something many hail as a boon to mankind. Now if >only California will slide into the sea... >---------------- > >Nothing personal against California... I threw that in as a patriotic >Oregonian, as I'd already destroyed half of my *own* state. :) > >Garth > >-- >Rule Date: 1999-11-26 15:41:39 GMT Validity: There was up to this point an ambiguity as to whether the 127:1 mandate regarding each rule's relationship to the "previous rule" referred to the previous *valid* rule or simply the previous rule submitted, regardless of validity. This ambiguity has now been resolved. Note that this presents an interesting dilemma to those who wish to submit a rule before a preceding rule has been judged... VALID. Style: STYLE +1 -Judge Christian -- Rule Date: 1999-11-26 16:05:18 GMT Rule 127:4 (Ronald Kunne, 1999-11-26 16:15:41 GMT) VALID +1 >>>>>> >29 avril 2001 > >The sea continues rising, my house is now on the sea-side >and worth much more than last year. > >Every new rule shall indicate a new way to save the world >or its inhabitants. I myself propose we built a space ship >to go and take a look elsewhere. > >>>>>>>>> > >Greetings, >Ronald > >-- >Rule Date: 1999-11-26 16:15:41 GMT Validity: VALID. Style: STYLE +1. -Judge Christian -- Rule Date: 1999-11-26 16:44:47 GMT Rule 127:5 (Garth Rose, 1999-11-26 17:35:27 GMT) VALID +2 >---------------- >May 6, 2002 > >The loss of croplands, seaports, and other vital economic assets has finally >caused global stock markets (still staggering from the downvaluing of Microsoft >stock) to crash, and a global depression ensues. On the bright side, all that >worthless paper money is put to good use by the wallpaper industry. > >Several of the more hawkish NATO generals have been heard to remark that the >whole thing must be the Commies' fault, and that we can save the world by >nuking North Korea and Cuba. > >In other news, a newly decoded Nostradamus prophecy indicates that the world >will end (appropriately enough) on a Monday. Nostradamus' predictions >invariably come true in this round... so all future rule dates should fall on >that day. >---------------- > >Personally, I think it's stylish in this round to allude to the disasters of >previous rules. I was tempted to try to make this a restriction, but thought >it wouldn't be appreciated. Note that I worked more than one restriction into >this rule... > >I'm also trying, if it wasn't obvious, to inject a little humor into the end of >the world. :) > >Garth > >-- >Rule Date: 1999-11-26 17:35:27 GMT Validity: Well, this rule appears to guarantee that the world will end on a Monday. Initially, I wondered if this might not conflict with 127:1's assertion that no one knows "the day or the hour" of the end. Ultimately, however, I decided to interpret this as meaning the *specific* day, not simply the day of the week. In theory, therefore, we can determine even more information about the date in question, provided we do not wind up pinpointing it exactly. Heisenberg's principle leaves me certain that this is VALID. Style: I predict our new doctrine of Nostrodamean infallibility will have interesting repercussions... STYLE +2. -Judge Christian -- Rule Date: 1999-11-26 19:27:51 GMT Rule 127:6 (Aron Wall, 1999-11-26 18:01:36 GMT) INVALID +1 >>>>>> > > > EMPEROR'S PROCLAMATION > > As it has come to our attention that permitting the lower slave >class of our Empire of peace and prosperity to engage in free trade of >ideas would seriously endanger our Imperial control over all the world >(except for that claimed by the United Counties of California, where >free speech will unfortunately remain a constitutional right, much to my >dismay and anger-- here we are rambling again, but we are unable to find >any more parchment and are at any rate too lazy to requill the beginning >of our eloquence), the lower slave class shall not fail in any way to >acknowledge our Imperial right as Supreme Monarch or disagree with us in >any other way (It is a little known fact that the lower slave class >consists of the members of the nomic "FRC" which we conquered this >morning). Prompt obedience is essential for our plan to save our >Imperial citizens. > > The Imperious Emperor Monday, June 3, 2003 > >-- >Rule Date: 1999-11-26 18:01:36 GMT Validity: Per rule 127:1, "each rule must be posted with a date at the *top*." Also, while this rule alludes to a plan, I'm not at all certain that it actually indicates the nature of said plan in a manner consistent with 127:4. INVALID. Style: A nice change of pace, presentation-wise. STYLE +1. -Judge Christian -- Rule Date: 1999-11-26 19:48:33 GMT Rule 127:7 (Aron Wall, 1999-11-26 23:51:54 GMT) VALID 0 >>>>>>>> >Monday, January 6, 2003 > > To stop any cataclysm from occurring, an Antarctican proconsul now >controls a tachyon ray which can fry any Martian troops who might try to >attack us. But in its manufacturing, humanity has had to pay a high >cost to the diabolic imps that built it. Each rule must now avoid >ASCII symbol #102 (lucky for us, "Nostradamus" is still good). Happily, >for gratis, an imp put a Saturnian symbol into our bargain, bringing our >symbol quota back up to par. It looks sort of similar to a "K", only >backwards, and has a "shz" sound. >>>>>>>> > >Note that ASCII #102 is the lowercase "e". > >Aron Wall > >-- >Rule Date: 1999-11-26 23:51:54 GMT Validity: When do I get my new keyboard? VALID. Style: Connection of restriction to theme seems a bit tenuous, but this is balanced by the interesting lexicographic hoop it creates for the committee to jump through. STYLE +1. -Judge Christian -- Rule Date: 1999-11-27 01:09:22 GMT Re: 127:7 Anton Cox wrote: > 127:7 states > ...Each rule must now avoid ASCII symbol #102... > > The word 'now' implies to me the meaning 'from this point on' - and so > should not the restriction also apply to 127:7 itself? Assuming this > to be the case, then the use of the words 'the' and 'rule' seems, > shall we say, problematic... Hmmm, the "each rule" bit slipped past me; quite disturbing, given that I actually did give the rule a once-over for e's... I still find the rule to be valid, however, due to my (perhaps idiosyncratic) ideas regarding timing. By definition, a rule cannot take effect until it has been validated and incorporated into the ruleset. Therefore, it seems to me that for us to be constrained by the restriction that something must happen "now," or "from now on," 127:7 would have to have already been validated, and therefore not subject to the restriction. I would probably even grant this interpretation had the phrasing been "from this point on," by the same reasoning. By my way of thinking, a restriction cannot bind an already-validated rule unless it does so explicitly (e.g., "this rule," "all rules"). I *will* however, dock Aron a style point, given that he clearly intended to obey his own rule, and missed by 2 characters... Revised ruling: 127:7 VALID 0 -Judge Christian -- Rule Date: 1999-11-29 20:19:29 GMT Rule 127:8 (Ed Murphy, 1999-11-28 20:38:46 GMT) VALID -2 >MONDAY, MARCH 15, 2004 > >I WAS ATTACKED THIS MORNING BY A HORDE OF DISGRUNTLED AOL USERS WHO >COULDN'T ACCESS THEIR E-MAIL. I MANAGED TO LOCK THEM UP IN THE CELLAR >(THANK GOODNESS!), BUT THE ONLY LOCK AVAILABLE TO ME WAS MY CAPS LOCK >KEY. SOME IRONY, THAT. NOW IF ONLY CAPTAINS STERN AND BRANNIGAN WILL >RETURN IN TIME FROM THEIR QUEST TO RECOVER THE SOLAR SYSTEM'S LAST >SHAVING CREAM ATOM... > >-- >Ed Murphy > >-- >Rule Date: 1999-11-28 20:38:46 GMT Validity: Future rulemakers should take care to satisfy 127:3 by providing an actual benefit which derives from the global worsening they report, rather than just mitigating the problem itself as this rule seems to do. Fortunately for Ed, incarcerating AOL's user base could easily be construed as a good thing in and of itself. Also, I'm forced to assume that retrieving the shaving cream atom somehow figures into a plan for world salvation; rules need to be MUCH more explicit in indicating the nature of such plans. Nevertheless, I'll let this one slide with a style penalty. VALID. Style: Pushes the validity envelope a bit, plus I'm not a great fan of rules with no apparent restrictions... STYLE -2. -Judge Christian -- Rule Date: 1999-11-29 01:20:03 GMT Rule 127:9a (Aron Wall, 1999-11-30 01:46:16 GMT) INVALID +2 >>>>>> > Monday, March 28, 2005 > > USA is now a dictatorship (bad!). But our dictator is giving >Nostradamus a good look (good part!). Any law past 127:9 is INVALID if >it isn't fulfilling a Nostradamus quotation of our last FRC law. This >law's quotation: > > "A sun shall fall into a pot: Four kings will rip apart a land of >mountains; but a fifth shall wind up clocks." > >Escape by going to past? No way. >>>>>> > >-- >Rule Date: 1999-11-30 01:46:16 GMT Rule 127:9 (Aron Wall, 1999-11-30 01:47:47 GMT) VALID 0 >> >>>>> >> Monday, March 28, 2005 >> >> USA is now a dictatorship (bad!). But our dictator is giving >> Nostradamus a good look (good part!). Any law past 127:9 is INVALID if >> it isn't fulfilling a Nostradamus quotation of our last FRC law. This >> law's quotation: >> >> "A sun shall fall into a pot: Four kings will rip apart a land of >> mountains; but a fifth shall wind up clocks." >> >> Avoid it by going to past? No way. >> >>>>> > >If you'll let me... > >Aron Wall > >-- >Rule Date: 1999-11-30 01:47:47 GMT Validity: 127:9a is inescapably INVALID. I had a difficult time deciding whether 127:9 fulfilled 127:4's requirement that "every new rule shall indicate a new way to save the world or its inhabitants," but in the end concluded that declaring that a particular way *won't* work still qualifies. After all, presumably *no* plan will work, or it wouldn't be the end of the world, would it? 127:9 is VALID. Style: Another interesting restriction from Aron. I find references to Nostrodamus stylish. I find rules which force everyone *else* to refer to Nostrodamus even more stylish. As for the repost, Aron (as a first offender) gets off with a warning, escaping any style penalty. Let future revisionists beware! STYLE +2. Hint: I will likely find any rule which seals this rule's glaring loophole to be pretty stylish, too. -Judge Christian -- Rule Date: 1999-11-30 16:05:47 GMT Rule 127:10a (Garth Rose, 1999-11-30 07:04:39 GMT) INVALID +1 >-------------------- >Monday, August 28, 2006 > >All croak'd stiffs back as cannibalistic zombis this month. Bright lining to >cloud: Microsoft's own Bill G. is back - stock is up again! "Bill is still a >fun guy," company says. An old film has a plan for our salvation: Shoot >zombis in cranium. > >Zombi Bill finally has solution to Y2K, if a bit tardy. It's simplicity: Turn >back your Windows clock. So Nostradamus was right in our last law: A king >turns back clocks so as to run - 'winds up', to long-ago wizard. > >All coming FRC laws should say a Nostradamus quotation, known to history or >found now. This law's quotation: 'World will fall when FRC anoints Garth >as victor in Round 127.' It was found this month in an old book - handy, no? >-------------------- > >Hey, it was worth a try. :) And I did close the loophole, M. Judge - when I >could have won the round right here by not including a quote, making all >subsequent rules INVALID by 127:9. > >Garth > >P.S. I really, REALLY hate working without the letter 'e'. :) Hasn't this >been done to death in the past? > >-- >Rule Date: 1999-11-30 07:04:39 GMT Rule 127:10 (Garth Rose, 1999-11-30 07:14:16 GMT) VALID -1 >-------------------- >Monday, August 28, 2006 > >All croak'd stiffs back as cannibalistic zombis this month. Bright lining to >cloud: Microsoft's own Bill G. is back - stock is up again! "Bill is still a >fun guy," company says. An old film has a plan for our salvation: Shoot >zombis in cranium. > >Zombi Bill finally has solution to Y2K, if a bit tardy. It's simplicity: Turn >back your Windows clock. So Nostradamus was right in our last law: A king >turns back clocks so as to run - 'winds up', to long-ago wizard. > >All coming FRC laws should say a Nostradamus quotation, known to history or >found now. This law's quotation: 'World will fall on a day that FRC anoints >Garth as victor in Round 127.' It was found this month in an old book - handy, >no? >-------------------- > >Aieeee! One lousy 'e'. Please accept this substitute, M. Judge. > >Garth > >-- >Rule Date: 1999-11-30 07:14:16 GMT Validity: 127:10a is obviously INVALID. 127:10 fixes the only problem with this rule and is therefore VALID. Style: Garth certainly deserves credit for closing 127:9's loophole; on the other hand, I consider blatant grabs for power (while a perfectly legal part of the game) to be grossly unstylish. Docking a point for the repost leaves these rules with a net STYLE 0. -Judge Christian -- Rule Date: 1999-11-30 15:59:45 GMT Rule 127:11 (Anton Cox, 1999-11-30 16:09:28 GMT) VALID +3 >>>>>>> > >Monday, 7 May 2007 > >Martian troops, though not in a position to attack us, cut all our >off-world contact last month. Just as at Alamo or Paris in days past, >our folks had to last on minimal rations, as our main foodstocks soon ran >out. (Low gravity may form big cows, but I always thought Moon-farms >would cost us!) > >As frail inhabitants would soon pass away, our high command today >stood down and said all was lost. Mars took all our blooms (to add >colour to what is a dull monochromatic world). Small comfort that in >spring I will not go "Atishyoo!" from now on! > >So as to stop Garth going off to Mars in a plantpot (his family ID, >along with a poor grasp of botany, could bring about Martain >confusion) our clan has laid upon him a non-botanic call-sign. So now >Garth is known as Victor. (A similar trick would work for many of >our kin.) > >Nostradamus knows all! Our born-again stiffs you will find in Sixains >XIX (last bit). So what of that which is laid out just prior to that: > >"A croc has hid on our land."? > >Do not post from now if you cannot add to our constraints! > >>>>>>> > > Anton Gawain Cox (a man who can still sign off his posts in full!) > >PS: For those interested in such matters, I found the texts of the >Sixains at > >http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~jamesf/sixains.html > >-- >Rule Date: 1999-11-30 16:09:28 GMT Validity: VALID. Style: Wow. Parries 127:9, references *genuine* Nostradamus, and mandates constraints? Are you familiar with the term "ceiling effect?" STYLE +3. -Judge Christian -- Rule Date: 1999-11-30 16:31:58 GMT Rule 127:12 (Garth Rose, 1999-11-30 18:24:31 GMT) VALID +2 >------------------ >Monday, July 21, 2008 > >Job's book is known to call croc LEVIATHAN - a disastrous sign of nasty doings. >So many cataclysms could satisfy Nostradamus' word; but in fact it was right >on! An amphibious dinosaur runs amok out of a Scottish loch, killing many. A >small good point is that fossil profs go wild with joy! (And say that it >is kin to crocs and alligators.) > >Our high command says Martians talk about a bargain: if Antarctica turns off >its tachyonic ray, Mars kills dinosaur for us in grand old fashion - with >a big impact craton. > >This Nostradamus quotation from Sixain XVI probably has additional instruction: >'In our 10th month, a king anoints a man who brings in a loch monstrosity.' >Coming laws must now say quotations from Nostradamus' *historical* Sixains! >(Mildly good translations, anyway. Obvious ASCII char difficulty calls for >small twisting.) >----------------- > >I take back what I said about working without 'e'. It's growing on me now that >I'm getting used to the challenge. And frankly, the challenge of finding >something suitable in the Sixains and then writing it without 'e' for the >stylishness of it was great fun! So I'm sharing... :) > >This round is shaping up to be one of the best in a long while. It's living >proof of what I said some time ago, about a round needing an engaging >constructive backdrop as well as logic puzzles. It's a riot! > >Garth > >-- >Rule Date: 1999-11-30 18:24:31 GMT Validity: VALID. Style: I'm growing majorly fond of this round's otherworldly visitors; I hardly miss that old typing symbol anymore. Still waiting for my cool Saturnian keyboard, though. P.S. Good bit about using Sixains! STYLE +2. -Judge Christian -- Rule Date: 1999-11-30 19:24:54 GMT Rule 127:13 (Jeremy D. Selengut, 1999-11-30 21:13:02 GMT) INVALID +1 >*****127:13***** >Mon, October 31 2009: > >Such disgusting twists of logic now bring Man against Man! >Mars as our captor should magnify our bonds, not diminish our humanity. > >Look, now this is what 2009 has wrought. > >Our dictator (was USA's VP long ago), wants to allow Mars pass on >Tachyonic ray. "Fool," rails Antarctican king Fido, "without our ray >Mars will corrupt our brains!" Arranging for dinosaur's transport to US >lands was not just a distraction in his grand plans -- dino, with an army >too, to supply a coup d'croc! > >Fido annoints 2nd world dictator, his army captain and crony. First act: >to outlaw all days but Monday. Why? For fight against Martians allows no >days for play. Truly a calamity. But sadly to no avail vs. last days of >world. Optimists say: humans' minds not now in such loathing of passing >Sundays on to Mondays - world could fail at any hour, why worry? > >Quoth Nostradamus: > >"H_ who th_ Principality >Will hold through gr_at cru_lty, >H_ will s__ his gr_at phalanx at its _nd: >By v_ry dang_rous gunshot, >By agr__m_nt h_ could do b_tt_r, >Oth_rwis_ h_ will drink Orang_ juic_." > >Try this constraint: Martians will not go away until world blows up. > >*********** > >-JDS > >-- >Rule Date: 1999-11-30 21:13:02 GMT Validity: Thirty-one days hath October; too bad it has an 'e', too. INVALID. Style: STYLE +1. -Judge Christian -- Rule Date: 1999-11-30 22:08:40 GMT Rule 127:14 (Jeremy D. Selengut, 1999-12-01 14:56:25 GMT) VALID -1 >*****127:14***** >Mon, Oct. 31 2009: > >Such disgusting twists of logic now bring Man against Man! >Mars as our captor should magnify our bonds, not diminish our humanity. > >Look, now this is what 2009 has wrought. > >Our dictator (was USA's VP long ago), wants to allow Mars pass on >Tachyonic ray. "Fool," rails Antarctican king Fido, "without our ray >Mars will corrupt our brains!" Arranging for dinosaur's transport to US >lands was not just a distraction in his grand plans -- dino, with an army >too, to supply a coup d'croc! > >Fido annoints 2nd world dictator, his army captain and crony. First act: >to outlaw all days but Monday. Why? For fight against Martians allows no >days for play. Truly a calamity. But sadly to no avail vs. last days of >world. Optimists say: humans' minds not now in such loathing of passing >Sundays on to Mondays - world could fail at any hour, why worry? > >Quoth Nostradamus: > >"H_ who th_ Principality >Will hold through gr_at cru_lty, >H_ will s__ his gr_at phalanx at its _nd: >By v_ry dang_rous gunshot, >By agr__m_nt h_ could do b_tt_r, >Oth_rwis_ h_ will drink Orang_ juic_." > >Try this constraint: Martians will not go away until world blows up. > >*********** > >-JDS > >-- >Rule Date: 1999-12-01 14:56:25 GMT Validity: VALID. Style: Well, combined with the earlier attempt at posting this rule (and thus docked for the repost), the pair merits a combined style of +1. This point has already been awarded to 127:13, so STYLE 0. [FOLLOWUP: Eh? Can't follow my own logic here. If I'm docking a point for the repost, this rule should actually have STYLE -1.] -- Rule Date: 1999-12-01 15:06:00 GMT Rule 127:15 (Aron Wall, 1999-12-01 19:16:03 GMT) VALID +1 >>>>>> >Monday, Al 81, 2010 > >constraints: (all starting as soon as now is past) > ABSOLUTELY NO CAPITALS > Sp'll words fully, avoid abv. or contractions > 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9? No way! > >This rotation of our world about Sol: > I try to run away by hitchhiking on Plutonian ship-- to no avail. > Dictator has 92 day month to his own first calling-sound > Dictator turns paranoid, says kill all who ? dictator's authority. > Much blood spilt. > Bright part: angry opposition to harsh law; assassin poisons >dictator's OJ, now no dictator. > >Nostradamus says: > >"H who svral tims has >Hld th cag and thn th woods, >H will rturn to th first stat >His lif saf shortly aftrwards to dpart, >Still not knowing how to know, >H will look for a subjct in ordr to di." >>>>>> > >-- >Rule Date: 1999-12-01 19:16:03 GMT Validity: VALID. Stylistic Stuff: Tyrant Al is not living now, thanks to poison? Hurrah! Upcoming ban on word-mangling will do many no good at all, lacking that crucial symbol. Who has to fall back on taboo glyphs, though? Not I! (Took a point away for requiring so many constraints to build his trap, though. Unsporting, I say!) STYLE +1. - Christian, who is doing all this round's judging -- Rule Date: 1999-12-01 20:40:33 GMT Rule 127:16 (Ronald Kunne, 1999-12-02 12:55:06 GMT) INVALID +1 >>>>>>> >monday 46 al 2011. > >six days and i, (your dictator?), am back. that is bad! >i will pass away again. that is good! >i was dictator with box in this play and wood wizard too. > >pass away how? by martian or by nostradamus? > >"many pass away and last a born-again bird" > >no long quotations in your laws from now on. >>>>>>>> > >The quote is from Sixain LIII, translated in non-e English. >I was Judge and wizard in FRC which supposedly fulfills the previous >quote. > >Greetings, >Ronald > >-- >Rule Date: 1999-12-02 12:55:06 GMT Validity: Hoist by his own petard; 127:4 requires that "every new rule shall indicate a new way to save the world or its inhabitants." INVALID. Style: I like the idea of forcing people to paraphrase the Sixains, given the linguistic restrictions on this round. STYLE +1 You still have about an hour and half to get a new rule in, Ronald! -Judge Christian -- Rule Date: 1999-12-02 14:38:10 GMT Rule 127:17 (Anton Cox, 1999-12-02 14:00:10 GMT) VALID +2 >>>>>>> > >last monday in mmxi. > >oh what an awfully cold last lunar circuit! am i mad? no - gravity is >not what it was (mars hit us with an anti-physics ray) and our ailing >world now spins round (shining) moon not (dark) sun. still, half-man, >half-wolf folks now commonly around, which is good for stiff control (such >bony snacks!) > >mars lost in third galactic golf match to us - and took it badly >again... still not au fait with our world's animal kingdom, king ma>| >took our top golf man for an animal, so put him in box of bars ma>| found in >a zoo. as on last two occasions this was put on ship back to ma>|'s main >world, only to zoom back (with our man ok) as human form was found >out. > >ma>| just will not catch on to our habit of naming guys from >things in our natural world! commanding uk king's old lady to instruct >him in natural history was obviously a last-ditch act. > >what to do now? >do not win at golf to start with! ma>| will kill us all if it >occurs again. > >nostradamus said: > > blood-sucking worm will attach to wolf, > as grain sinks into vast pool. > >in laws as now unknown do not fail to put a pun. martians avoid all >such frivolity, so will not spy on our mail. > >>>>>>> > >As you can see, I think Ronald's last rule was invalid. >I hope the fulfillment of nostradamus is clear in all its detail - if >the judge wants more I can easily oblige... > > Best Wishes, > > Anton > >-- >Rule Date: 1999-12-02 14:00:10 GMT Validity: Ah, the wonders of modern martian resurrective technology... Who else will they bring back, I wonder? VALID. Style: I'm only going to give this rule two points. If I keep handing Anton threes every time, what will I do when he tops himself? STYLE +2. -Judge Christian -- Rule Date: 1999-12-02 15:20:00 GMT Rule 127:18 (Ronald Kunne, 1999-12-02 14:59:56 GMT) INVALID +1 >>>>>>> >third monday and third month of mmxxii > > _ ::: > / \_ ::: > ______/ _| _____ > / / /:::::\ > | / \_____/ > \ __/\\ > || || \\ /==== > || || \======/ > || || > >bid our mighty physician >that lady shall without pain > >thousands of martians land in paris >to visit our famous "tour" >(and buy our "croissants", that is good!) > >put it on mars, i would say, and martians stay away! > >add an animal in your laws, as us humans will soon pass out. >>>>>>>> > >Nostradamus supplies the pun in verse X. >The wolf, and other paraphernalia appear as predicted. >As I am running out of time, I hope I didn't forget >anything this time..... > >Greetinsg, >Ronald > >-- >Rule Date: 1999-12-02 14:59:56 GMT Validity: 'x' marks the spot where this rule becomes invalid; specifically, the extra 'x' in the roman numeral year, which would make it 2022 instead of 2012. Oh well. INVALID. Style: STYLE +1. -- Rule Date: 1999-12-02 16:04:11 GMT Rule 127:19 (Aron Wall, 1999-12-04 20:26:48 GMT) VALID +1 >>>>>> >monday al third mmxii > >afraid of half man, half wolf? do not worry. half-man-half-wolf's >blood is now lunch for wyrms (no big part in my law, just drag-ons [ha >ha ha]). laws must now contain a monstrosity which has prior law's >monstrosity for lunch. > >about martian confiscation of our plants-- mars throws it all into >martian quicksand. But now >stuff-that-is-from-that-by-which-grain-loafs-was-rising-in-past* is now >popular, so now i am rich from my >that-by-which-grain-loafs-was-rising-in-past farm (bright part-- for i, >anyway). > >is our saturnian symbol magic? a way out? as soon as now is past, put >it into all your laws so as to find out. put it into a word! > >nostradamus: >"dcvi, in writing charon will put it > physician, is thinking all this is amazing..." >>>>>> > >* yeast extract > >Aron Wall > >-- >Rule Date: 1999-12-04 20:26:48 GMT Validity: VALID. Stylistics: Just a thought -- why would a Martian king carry a symbol from Saturn in his naming? Is this not odd, don't you think? STYLE +1. -Judicial Guy Christian -- Rule Date: 1999-12-05 05:56:49 GMT Rule 127:20 (Garth Rose, 1999-12-07 08:29:37 GMT) VALID +2 >------------- >monday al ninth mmxiii > >loch dinosaur is smart, can talk! transmits its invitation to wyrm kin for >lunch so as to discuss allying. humanity quails. > >charon, lord of diabolic imps, admits his causation of rising stiffs. says >that imps now want to ally with human high command: "our big boss, old nick, >wants humanity around to supply souls for damnation." good for us? > >charon is an ominous guy - signs pact with humans with 'dcvi', saying that is >two thirds of antichrist symbol. doctors ask him how stiffs can walk. his >cryptic words to physicians unlock possibility of a solution for our world: >practical cryonics to wait it all out? anyway, big pact, writ in blood, is >sanguinary for futurity. (ha ha) > >ma>| claims titular rank of grand poobah of sol on grounds of saturnian symbol >in his call-sign. says that imps crossing mars on too many occasions. war is >coming again! possibly with saturn and pluto too? > >nostradamus says in sixain ii: > >in strong land will a count walk, >pygmy aid from copyists. > >no additional rows than two from sixains from now on. say which sixain your >quotation is from, to aid judging guy. >------------- > >Whew! That took some effort. :) Note the secondary pun: Nessie has the >dragons 'for lunch'. :) > >By the way, just which dictator died from poisoned orange juice? I can count >three at least: the former VP of the USA, Antarctican king Fido, and the >second dictator anointed by Fido. Even Bill Gates might qualify. :) > >As for Charon... I thought that the diabolic imps had been neglected for too >long. Surely they have a role to play beyond giving us the tachyonic ray and >our new Saturnian glyph! > >-- >Rule Date: 1999-12-07 08:29:37 GMT Validity: VALID. Styling: Oh, how can I stop giggling in a way much as that of a young schoolgirl, if I must always scan such mirth-inducing submissions as this? I think I cannot! Also, many thanks for assisting yours truly with that last bit about giving us a handy sixain locator; folks do that anyway (so far), but I'm happy to know that now all MUST do so . STYLE +2. -Judge Christian -- Rule Date: 1999-12-07 17:41:27 GMT Rule 127:21 (Anton Cox, 1999-12-07 17:48:48 GMT) VALID +2 >>>>>>> > >mmxiv, first monday of may >on what is - doubt not ! - so far our worst day > >dracula stalks our world again, >prowling round antarctica, >many find him such a pain, >(usually in a jugular). > >still, his snack of lochosaurus, >you must admit is not bad for us! > >cloning imps will aid lord charon, >(and thus us) in a fight. >grand poobah ma>| is not a moron - >so gm plant is now alight. > >but still his bio-lack is showing, >only cars hit; labs still going! > >nostradamus says that "worms turn cold >without finding a root, >as warring mars will now turn old" >(in sixains xxvii to boot). > >words still unwrit for days from now, >must rhyming form adopt (oh wow!) > >>>>>>> > > Anton > >-- >Rule Date: 1999-12-07 17:48:48 GMT Validity: It seems our tale is now a ballad, since this rule's most clearly VALID. [FOLLOWUP: I guess what's clear's not always so, I shall stand by my ruling, though, 'til our proposal's had its day and all have answered yea or nay...] Style: Must it e'er be my refrain that Anton's topped himself again? Yet once again he starts a craze by forcing all to ape his ways. How to reward the clever tot who brings our cast a nosferatu? T'would seem deuced unfair of me to grant him less than STYLE +3. [FOLLOWUP: A rule which doth the pop'lace rile must pay a token cost in style. Where three before were given to Anton, he now has STYLE +2.] -Judge Christian -- Rule Date: 1999-12-07 20:25:06 GMT Rule 127:22 (Anton Cox, 1999-12-07 18:39:48 GMT) INVALID 0 >>>>>>> > >mmxiv, first monday of may >on what is - doubt not ! - so far our worst day > >dracula stalks our world again, >prowling round antarctica, >many find him such a pain, >(usually in a jugular). > >still, his snack of lochosaurus, >you must admit is not bad for us! > >cloning imps will aid lord charon, >(and thus us) in a fight. >grand poobah ma>| is not a moron - >so our plant is now alight. > >but still his bio-lack is showing, >only cars hit; labs still going! > >nostradamus says that "worms turn cold >without finding a root, >as warring mars will now turn old" >(in sixains xxvii to boot). > >words still unwrit for days from now, >must rhyming form adopt (oh wow!) > >>>>>>> > > I hate to do it, but time is pressing... > > Anton > >-- >Rule Date: 1999-12-07 18:39:48 GMT Validity: This repost I deem UNSUCCESSFUL pending outcome of the stressful damn'd proposal, since the prior's valid 'til I'm made a liar. [FOLLOWUP: Oh, damn and blast and damn again, let's make this one INVALID, then! At least while Anton's other holds; we'll have to see how this unfolds.] Style: The first's already paid the cost; no further brickbats shall be tossed. -Judge Christian -- Rule Date: 1999-12-07 21:42:14 GMT Rule 127:23 (Jeremy D. Selengut, 1999-12-07 22:34:32 GMT) INVALID 0 >127:23 > >********** >monday, january third, mmxv > >dracula was flung in a ballistic arc >towards mars in vast spatial dark. >our try in all its futility >to instruct king ma>| in humility. >batty count, his fangs did attack >martian anatomy without lack. > >but, foul trick of biology >by incompatibility of cardiology, >our sanguinary warrior was laid low. >all was not lost, forsooth, >distant martians quickly lost all youth >voracious vampiric virus to go! > >ma>| was fuming, >fury all consuming, >shot our count with an arrow back >to land in various parts a noonish snack >for thousands of hungry worms >who chill into diabolical icy forms. > >luckily Imps find worm pops not poison >oh so tasty if you dunk in hoisin >and allow our Impish army to grow. >nostradamus predicts boats with gory oars: >"many thousands and thousands of warriors >lost in liquid without ability to throw a blow." > >this last from stanza trois, >my rhyming with fois gras >for no good raison >it is in saison >to put in a bit of francais. > >************ > >-Jeremy > >P.S. Hoisin is a chinese sauce. > >-- >Rule Date: 1999-12-07 22:34:32 GMT Validity: I regret that this rule I must nix, for using an 'e' in "predicts." INVALID. Style: Requiring a foreign tongue, unknown to more than one among the FRC, just isn't done, so style-wise this rule gets none. STYLE 0. -Judge Christian -- Rule Date: 1999-12-07 23:00:03 GMT Rule 127:24 (Garth Rose, 1999-12-08 01:24:10 GMT) VALID +2 >---------- >two thousand xv, on forty-fifth of al, >dragons slay assassin of jurassic pal. > >but shout not with joy for passing of count vlad, >his hard fight brings us vampiric wyrms - too bad! > >captain brannigan's arrival told of joy, >though his companion was lost to martians coy: > >a shaving lotion atom now in our hands, >can now bargain with ma>| to ransom our lands. > >(parasitical worms attack martian foot, >causing bad itchy hair right down to its root! > >itchy martian skin longs for lotion so cold, >will ma>| admit darkly that war is too old?) > >lord charon laughs loud with maniacal mirth: >"my cloning vat shows diabolical worth!" > >"my just-born imps' blood will pound with such lotion, >it will clinch for my troops a 'brutal' notion!" > >so that coming laws most trippingly will scan, >to match syllabic count in rhyming rows plan. > >nostradamus says in rhyming ii sixain, >"without accomplishing a primary aim, > >many thousands and thousands of troops will drown," >and to murky pit of tartarus go down! >------------- > >This one took me a while. :) Note that the pun is on the aftershave brand >'Brut'. Note also that this rule follows its own restriction, though it didn't >have to. In fact, *all* lines in this rule have eleven syllables, if I haven't >miscounted. > >I'm obviously assuming that ma>| and ii have only one syllable, while xv has >two. This seems very reasonable. (I read the numbers as the English word.) > >Finally, once again I thought I'd pull in something from a long-ago rule. I >always wondered about Captains Stern and Brannigan. :) > > >Garth > >-- >Rule Date: 1999-12-08 01:24:10 GMT Validity: Vampiric wyrms have drained me pallid! I've barely strength to name this VALID... Style: This syllable law should imbue rules with more esthetic value, for rules which adhere will fall soft on the ear; I'm granting this one STYLE +2. -Judge Christian -- Rule Date: 1999-12-08 04:04:03 GMT Rule 127:25 (Aron Wall, 1999-12-08 03:56:19 GMT) INVALID 0 >>>>>> >january first, mmxvi is now. >our world is now down a throat of a big rra>| cow. >ball third from sol? >now it is null >and thousands of troops fought, >but losing was our lot, >rra>| saliva did pour >finishing off our war >good part: it got mars too >(that is all it will do). >know our long round has not quit, >garth's first option: that is it. >constraint: contain not as many non-saturnian words as this law >b>|>|ighjili&*%^l&&ygligigum%$rmum\lo>|q (ha ha) >(my saturnian pun >is lost on us-- no fun) >from nostradamus, sixains i: >"a titular-guy put in bark." >>>>>> > >Aron Wall > >-- >Rule Date: 1999-12-08 03:56:19 GMT Validity: How can I grant validity, when there's no *plan* that I can see? INVALID. Style: Using symbols we know not's a certain path to diddly squat. STYLE 0 -Judge Christian -- Rule Date: 1999-12-08 06:22:10 GMT Rule 127:26 (Aron Wall, 1999-12-09 00:57:31 GMT) VALID +1 >>>>>> >july thirty-first, mmxvi >hiding in ruinous ta>| mahal-- try? > >but it works not >it is too hot > >fi>|ion bombs blowing up this day >disrupts our warmth flow many a way > >in this month it is fun to watch snow >but oh, how strong do our winds now blow > >our troops shown mortal by drowning >in floods (dictator is frowning) > >vampiric wyrms turn cannibalistic >it is dragons blood, that dragons do lick > >from now on in gaian words put ">|" >into spots in which its sound is "zh" > >and now our word from sixains i: "primary fortifica>|on of cathy is >razor cut" >from now on putt but as many rhyming couplings as i did (laws that do >not - is but smut) >>>>>> > >gaia - mother earth (from greek mythology) > >I was (and am) attempting to communicate the sound in the middle of >"fission" by both "shz" and "zh". My plan is on line two (hide in the >Taj Mahal. Pun on next to last line. Two constraints. I think I have >everything now... > >Aron Wall > >-- >Rule Date: 1999-12-09 00:57:31 GMT Validity: All couplets must have equal counts of syllables or I must pounce, but I am kind, so I shall give "fi>|on" a third and let this live. "FizhEEon," then, is how I'll read the word and VALIDate this screed. Style: Dubious pronunciation is a minor irritation. See that it's not overdone, if you seek more than STYLE +1. -Judge Christian -- Rule Date: 1999-12-09 03:29:09 GMT Rule 127:27 (Anton Cox, 1999-12-10 15:55:42 GMT) VALID +2 >>>>>>> > >mmxvii, christmas day, >and santa is going out on a slay! > >cotton clad horror from cairo acts wild >(angry that sun dark and it now so mild) > >(i think it a fun gift for ma>| to unwrap >so ship it to mars as a jolly good trap?) > >on waking from long nap in kimbolton fort >this sword waving thing ran amok - what a thought! > >many folk lost, and (though it did squirm), >also - thank god - our last living wyrm! > >find all your offspring; lock all your doors >i saw mummy kissing santa's claws! > >"born again spawn of saliva of frank" >(sixains part xxx for this I must thank) > >to finish, our count words must now sound as such >that is not too bad - i do not ask for much! > >>>>>>> > >Well, tis the season to be jolly (I couldnt resist building this rule >round line 12 - though it used up some vital lines!) > >Two Christmas puns (and some might say two plans), so I hope it is >OK... > >NB: Kimbolton Castle was the home of Catherine of Aragon after her divorce >from Henry VIII (the best I could manage...). > > Anton > >-- >Rule Date: 1999-12-10 15:55:42 GMT Validity: VALID. Style: If I wake up screaming with nightmares of a clawed, murderous Santa locked in a passionate embrace with a rampaging, scimitar-wielding mummy, I'm coming after *you*. Nice attention to historical detail, though. STYLE +2. -Judge Christian -- Rule Date: 1999-12-10 18:19:31 GMT Rule 127:28 (Aron Wall, 1999-12-13 05:25:04 GMT) INVALID +1 >>>>>> >christmas of two thousand and six plus six plus six, >and now a grinch is put into our frightful mix > >santa (on his slay), gifts, and mummy it got >munching it all with a bit of gravy, hot > >plan: run out and shout always >"turn back from your bad bad ways" > >frank's saliva again is producing a horrifc monstrosity >all laws must now put it in (or invalidify its philosophy) > >constraints as soon as now is past: >"ma>|" taboo-- it was not to last > >put in your first row that which is put >to say "post christ" or valid, my foot > >from sixains i (is it not stark?): >"a titular-guy put in bark" > >put a spot as this: (****) for doom >or your law, it shall not bloom >>>>>> > >Commentary by couplet: >1. date >2. monster "lunch" + pun >3. plan (repent and be *saved*...) >4. last Nostradamus prediction >5. I'm just sick of everyone using ma>| to fulfil the use ">|" >constraint... >6. another constraint >7. this time it rhymes >8. if Nostradamus is allowed to be cryptic, I'm allowed to be cryptic. > >Aron Wall > >-- >Rule Date: 1999-12-13 05:25:04 GMT Validity: Several issues raised here... 1) I'm not entirely pleased with the emerging trend of allowing 127:1's "worsening" requirement be provided by the mere introduction of a new monster per 127:19, but I won't penalize rules for this; I'm more concerned about rules letting the "bright side" required by 127:3 be satisfied by the fact that this new monstrosity devours the previous year's horror. It seems to me that unless the new monster is demonstrably *worse* than the previous, that this substitution provides neither a worsening nor a bright side, but rather amounts to a wash. Mr. Grinch passes this test, however, by eating not just last turn's threats, but our Christmas presents as well. 2) Is there a new pun here, or just a recycling of last turn's "slay" pun? No matter, it seems either will satisfy 127:17. (Actually, I'd consider this rule's twist on "save" from 127:4 to be a pun as well, per my defense of Aron's earlier pun on "raze.") 3) Does the fourth couplet rhyme? I'm forced to conclude that it does, since the terminal syllables do so. This is enough to qualify it as a form of rhyme, and 127:21 does not require any more than this. 4) Are we to allow zero-syllable signifiers in our rhymes, as in this rule's penultimate line? I think this is acceptable, if sure to be controversial. Conclusion: Well, a proposal on this one won't surprise me, but I'm content to rule it VALID. [FOLLOWUP: Well, OK, I'll admit I *was* surprised by the fact that the proposal did not hinge on one of the issues above. Jesse points out, however, that 127:15 requires that rules "[spell] words fully," which this rule clearly fails to do in the case of "horrifc." INVALID.] Style: Clever plan; I'm surprised it's taken 24 turns for this interpretation to pop up! Somewhat perfunctory fulfillment of last turn's prophecy, though... I hope *someone* will let us know who Frank is! STYLE +1. -Judge Christian -- Rule Date: 1999-12-14 15:01:51 GMT Rule 127:29 (Aron Wall, 1999-12-13 21:29:33 GMT) VALID 0 >>>>>> >christmas of two thousand and six plus six plus six, >and now a grinch is put into our frightful mix > >santa (on his slay), gifts, and mummy it got >munching it all with a bit of gravy, hot > >plan: run out and shout always >"turn back from your bad bad ways" > >frank's saliva again is producing a horrific monstrosity >all laws must now put it in (or invalidify its philosophy) > >constraints for anton as soon as now is past: >"ma>|" is now taboo-- it was not long to last > >put in your first row that which is put >to say "post christ" or valid, my foot > >from sixains i (is it not stark?): >"a titular-guy put in bark" > >put a spot as this: (****) for doom >or your law, it shall not bloom >>>>>> >Just for prudence's sake. > >Aron Wall > >-- >Rule Date: 1999-12-13 21:29:33 GMT Validity: Sp'lls words fully. VALID. Style: A stab at Anton spices up an otherwise straight repost. A point has already been awarded 127:28, so I'll give this one STYLE 0. -Judge Christian -- Rule Date: 1999-12-14 15:18:38 GMT Rule 127:30 (Anton Cox, 1999-12-15 14:17:33 GMT) VALID +1 >>>>>>> > >may day, mmxix, anno domini >that row is long and ugly now - not my fault i cry! > >all air is bad now i admit >but it is fun in diving kit > >our own wizard with illu>|ion >could put mars folk in confu>|ion > >so ship him hid in club of wood >to golf match - that should do us good > >our grinch was lunch, (it had to go) >caught in a trap by black widow > >sinatra (still drooling) now can say >that is my boy - i did it my way! > >what kind of law shall bloom? a plant! >(from mars) "so ban it, now!" i chant > >from now into your law a row of song you must affix >from nostradamus: "of two monks, half bring fish" (xxvi) > >>>>>> > >Remarks: Since I tried to weave everything together this time, I would >not like my links to go unnoticed... > >My second pun on plan (see 21), by referring to Aron's last rule (29) >and my earlier one (11) makes Aron's "bloom" a pun as well. His last >couplet was suitably obscure! > >My pun on wood was alluded to in (17), and in turn alludes to that rule. >I combine my plan with the fulfillment of the prophecy (and >demonstrate some knowledge of zh-words other than Ma>|...). > >My second song quote (see 27) explains frank (27), and led me to my >second constraint. > >I would have used scuba in the first couplet, but ran the risk if it >being regarded as an abbreviation :-) > >Since the judge likes them I include another 'pun' (on pike) in my >quote, which if you also include 'bloom' in the same way makes four, I >believe. > >I think it is clear what I think of having to include AD in my first >line.. > > Best Wishes, > > Anton > >-- >Rule Date: 1999-12-15 14:17:33 GMT Validity: Far be it from me to quibble over the proper pronunciation of a bit of latin. One, it's a dead language, so who can say? and two, we Americans pronounce foreign languages any damn way we want to anyway, so who am I to criticize? VALID. Style: These style assessments are getting more and more difficult to make. As much as I enjoy them, with stylish things like wordplay and allusion being mandated by earlier rules, I feel I must hold back the big rewards for rules which break new ground, style-wise. STYLE +1. -Judge Christian P.S. The Judge would appreciate it if future rulemakers would annotate their song references, just in case they're not obvious to me. What, I look like Dick Clark over here? -- Rule Date: 1999-12-15 16:10:07 GMT Rule 127:31 [Skipped to rectify numbering error introduced by 127:9a] Rule 127:32 [Skipped to rectify numbering error introduced by 127:10a] -- Rule Date: 1999-12-15 16:20:49 GMT Rule 127:33 (Aron Wall, 1999-12-16 23:35:54 GMT) INVALID +1 >>>>>> >july third, two thousand six plus six plus six plus two >saliva thing of frank kills black widow in a coup > >laws now built from flimsy stuff (bad!) >containing far too much fluff (sad!) > >laws past this shall last firm but for six days until rot >but past this limit our laws' constraints shall turn to naught > >look, bright part: if an impish law says "i am last law" >six days and our laws can upon it putt scorn (ha ha) > >"sinistrous i snatching, for a duration prison law" (ix) >past now put in laws no roman countings but a "xxix" > >i>|po: containing typo >any laws past this: i>|po > >a bold plan: put a quantity of typos to fool our round's judging guy, >putting into a law that kills off martians oops validity, that's why. > >our last monk but i is sharing trout >singing "of which i sing" standing stout >>>>>> > >The song is "My Country 'tis of Thee". > > >Aron Wall > >-- >Rule Date: 1999-12-16 23:35:54 GMT Validity: That's a contraction of "that is," that is. INVALID. Style: STYLE +1. -Judge Christian -- Rule Date: 1999-12-17 15:12:33 GMT Rule 127:34 (Aron Wall, 1999-12-17 17:22:45 GMT) VALID -1 > >>>>> > july third, two thousand six plus six plus six plus two > saliva thing of frank kills black widow in a coup > > laws now built from flimsy stuff (bad!) > containing far too much fluff (sad!) > > laws past this shall last firm but for six days until rot > but past this limit our laws' constraints shall turn to naught > > look, bright part: if an impish law says "i am last law" > six days and our laws can upon it putt scorn (ha ha) > > "sinistrous i snatching, for a duration prison law" (ix) > past now put in laws no roman countings but a "xxix" > > i>|po: containing typo > any laws past this: i>|po > > a bold plan: put a big quantity of typos to fool our round's judging >guy, > putting into a law that kills off martians oops validity, that is why. > > our last monk but i is sharing trout > singing "of you i sing" standing stout > >>>>> > >This is a repost. > > To Judge: Would it be stylish to point out to my own >detriment here that your style awards were not really penalizing reposts? >If two rules are close enough to be considered reposts, and close enough >to have very similar style, then the first rule will get whatever you >actually think of the rule if there were only one of it, and the second >will get the negative for repost. If (as a simple example) you decided >that reposting a rule is worth -1 Style, you would always give the second >rule -1 Style. Whenever you award 0 Style >to the second rule (which you seem to be doing rather often), the player >is not penalized at all for the repost. Of course, maybe you like it this >way, perhaps it extends the round out... > >P.S. Have we gotten to a record number of reposts yet? > >Aron Wall > >-- >Rule Date: 1999-12-17 17:22:45 GMT Validity: OK, I give up. If there's anything else wrong here, I don't see it. VALID. Style: An explanation of my style awards for reposts has been posted seperately to the list. For his impudence, Aron shall not only suffer a one-point style penalty, but shall have this penalty raised to the fifth power! STYLE -1^5. -Judge Christian -- Rule Date: 1999-12-17 21:03:10 GMT Rule 127:35 (Anton Cox, 1999-12-17 19:21:08 GMT) INVALID +2 >>>>>>> >may fifth, two thousand coupling with syllabic count of this row, > anno domini >aron (long row coupling tyrant) kills saliva spawn by crushing it with > words (sigh) > >trans-atlantic war bursts out >as to how to talk and shout > >non-anglo-saxons think this cool >should simplify translating skool > >all might blow up, so my mi>|ion >plan: stop making bombs of fi>|ion > >starving in lands with only briar >for food find monkfish in a friar > >i was about to pinch slot but did fail >so now i form this from within my jail > >"so as to hold out against rival, griffon trains" >is this just fantasy? no xxix, sixains > >my constraints: do not now adjust at all song row >in valid laws no rows from bad laws must now go > >>>>>>> > >I dont know what reason Ronald has for thinking 127:34 invalid, so I >have (I hope) designed this rule to be valid regardless. (I cant >afford to wait around tonight to find out if this is true!) To do this I >use the ambiguity already noted as to the number of syllables in >coupling, and fulfill two Nostradamus quotes (plus of course the new >constraints). One boon of Aron's rule is that I can kill saliva spawn >whether his rule is valid or not! > >my song is bohemian rhapsody (inserted after griffon quote) >pun on friar/fryer >mispelling (if needed) is skool. >reference in couplet 5 is to my attempt to get a rule in before Aron >reposted >i is always the word "I" and not the roman one, which I regard as a >different (though similarly spelt) word. > >Anton > >-- >Rule Date: 1999-12-17 19:21:08 GMT Validity: 127:34's typo requirement does not explicitly release us from the burdens of prior constraints, thus "skool" fails to "sp'll words fully." If your rule needs to be i>|po, I recommend employing a typo which does not omit any letters from the originnal wodr... INVALID. Style: Very efficient provision for multiple contingencies. STYLE +2. -Judge Christian -- Rule Date: 1999-12-17 21:32:51 GMT Rule 127:36 (Anton Cox, 1999-12-20 14:42:32 GMT) VALID +1 >>>>>>>> >boxing day, two thousand plus half of forty two, anno domini >spit-ball is now part of provi>|ions for aron-anton hybrid guy > >now clouds, in always staying low >turn down all light to a dull glow > >"this world has lost its glory" do you sigh? >but! - a tiny star lights up in your cry > >"build up his army against loxodonta africana" >is in part xxix of nostrodamus' arcana > >aaron last told us "roman bad" - from now add latin too >adjusting songs, or wrongs from laws, you also must not do! > >to stop us using up all that is on our ball >you must not throw away a big thing or a small > >now wormwood scrubbs run by a mafia man >but is that all part of a biblical plan? > >if your goal right now is to run a gaol >your plan it will sink - you should look for bail! > >>>>>>> > >always staying low - the winner takes it all (abba) >a big thing or a small - the winner takes it all (abba) >this world has lost its glory - words (beegees) >a tiny star lights up in your cry - when a child is born (johnny mathas) > >i have taken the instruction to point out a bright side, however small, >absolutely literally! >wormwood scrubbs is a british prison, chosen so as to allude to that >other well-known source of predictions, revelations. >gaol is of course the british for jail (and not a typo for goal >earlier in the line!) >loxodonta africana is better known as the african elephant > >in case the judge wonders at my convoluted date, i might note that >there are no odd e-less numbers :-( > > Anton > >-- >Rule Date: 1999-12-20 14:42:32 GMT Validity: I was not at first sure I could find a typo in this rule to satisfy 127:34, but I've decided that "wormwood scrubbs" qualifies. While "scrubbs" is a widespread spelling of the prison's name, the official spelling is in fact "scrubs" (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/hmipris/inspects/ws1.htm). "Scrubbs" would therefore qualify as a misspelling (albeit a common one) which fortuitously does not omit any of the name's original letters (i.e., it manages to spell the word fully, and then some). VALID. Style: The bit about adding latin is difficult to parse. Should latin be added to the roman numeral restriction and thereby banned, or is latin instead to be required in all rules? I think either position could be defended. STYLE +1. -Judge Christian -- Rule Date: 1999-12-20 15:57:01 GMT Rule 127:37 (Aron Wall, 1999-12-23 15:14:52 GMT) INVALID 0 >>>>>> >first day of two thousand and four six minus two, >our world falls into our now dark coal black moon too > >riding it was fun though (sing this row out loud) >plan: duck in among a big galactic crowd > >cibus animus rivi is what nwo is our last monstrosity >anton, put proof of multiplicity of sorts of infinity > >griffon has ability to fight against army (stanza of last law) >dictator putts army into an ivory hunt (ha ha ha ha ha) > >not as many >words (if any) > >as i am putting >in this law stinging > >cat >rat > >>|at >splat >>>>>> > >-- >Rule Date: 1999-12-23 15:14:52 GMT Validity: 127:29 states that "Frank's saliva [...] all rules must now put it in." The only possible provision for this requirement is found in line 5: "cibus animus rivi." Both "cibus" and "animus" being nominative, the best translation I can come up with for this is "living meal of a river," or "that which is eaten alive by a river." If we are generous and read this to state that last year's Aron/Anton hybrid has been engulfed not merely by a mundane river, but rather by some riviform monstrosity (thereby fulfilling 127:19's monstrophagic mandate), may we then further assume that this creature is in fact a mass of seething Sinatran spittle such as to satisfy 127:29? I've been going back and forth on this one for two days now. I'm doubtful, but fortunately (for me) I'm spared having to come to a decision by a couple of other factors which I believe invalidate this rule. 1) Is there a pun in this rule? I don't think "putt" qualifies (in either instance). A pun must "suggest two or more of [a word's] meanings," but I see only meaning invoked here (ie, to put). 2) Can we really read "four six" as "four *times* six" as this rule wants us to? "Four sixes" I could see, but I don't think "four six" works. After all, should we read "forty six" as "forty times six?" This seems absurd. INVALID Style: Do those last two couplets serve any purpose? STYLE 0. -- Rule Date: 1999-12-23 15:50:07 GMT -- Rule Date: 1999-12-27 19:57:25 GMT