Round 128 The round is now over, and Christian is the new Wizard Judge. Plenty of rules (and plenty of controversy over my adjudications...), but did we in fact get very far? A surprisingly high proportion of invalid rules may have had something to do with it. Congratulations to Christian, and I wish him a trouble free round with the gavel... ex-Judge Anton Theme - Resolutions. Player Eligibility expires Style ---------------------------------------------------- Christian Leonhard 18 Jan 18:08:42 +3.0 Ronald Kunne +2.5 Everyone else +0.0 Aron Wall +2.0 Jeremy D. Selengut +1.5 Ed Murphy +1.0 Dwight McDowell +0.5 John-Martin Lotz -1.0 John M Goodman II +1.0 Rule Author Posted at Judgement Style --------------------------------------------------- 128:1 Christian 5 Jan 14:12:31 VALID +0.5 128:2 Ronald 5 Jan 14:39:35 VALID +0.5 128:3 Christian 5 Jan 15:31:07 INVALID +0.5 128:4 Dwight 5 Jan 16:03:37 INVALID +0.5 128:5 Christian 5 Jan 16:57:23 VALID -1.5 128:6 Aron 5 Jan 18:07:13 VALID +1.0 128:7 John 5 Jan 18:30:03 INVALID +1.0 128:8 Christian 5 Jan 18:32:44 INVALID +1.0 128:9 John 5 Jan 19:17:15 INVALID +0.0 128:10 John-Martin 5 Jan 20:21:46 INVALID -1.0 128:11 Christian 6 Jan 15:52:07 INVALID +1.0 128:12 Christian 6 Jan 15:55:08 VALID -2.0 128:13 Aron 6 Jan 19:18:04 INVALID +1.0 128:14 Christian 6 Jan 19:32:29 VALID +1.5 128:15 Ed 9 Jan 02:33:27 INVALID +1.0 128:16 Ronald 11 Jan 12:54:57 VALID +1.0 128:17 Christian 11 Jan 18:08:42 VALID +2.0 128:18 Jeremy 11 Jan 22:47:37 INVALID +1.5 128:a Aron 12 Jan 00:04:36 LATE N/A 128:19 Ronald 14 Jan 13:44:40 INVALID +0.5 128:20 Ronald 17 Jan 08:45:39 INVALID +0.5 Proposals: >>>>>> Proposal 128:A - Jeremy D. Selengut - Wed 12 Jan 20:05:30 - FAILED - (2/5) >>>>>> Rule 128:18 be declared VALID and the author be retroactively awarded the appropriate days of eligibility as if the Judge had declared the rule VALID. >>>>>> Votes - for: Jeremy, Jesse - against: John, Ronald, Christian, Rules and Judgements: >>>>>> 128:1 - Christian Leonhard - Wed 5 Jan 14:12:31 - VALID - (+0.5) >>>>>> Resolution: Having learned the value of a single leter from our last round, the FRC resolves to no longer profligately waste these precious comodities. No rule in this round shal use any word containing a doubled leter where a single one wil serve. >>>>>> Judgement: This rule is VALID. Style: This rule seems best described as "mostly harmless". Letter restrictions dont often thrill me (and this is no exception), but as a first rule it sets the round going without being overly restrictive. As long-standing members will probably have observed, I am no great fan of motiveless restrictions, so I approve of the justification. But the rule seems pretty anonymous apart from that, going not much further in shaping the round than clarifying the theme. So overall I give it +0.5 Style. Remarks: Since this rule suggests they might be relevant I warn that I will be severe over typos! Resolutions it is then. Ah well, looks like all hope of boosting the judge's secret swiss bank account was unfounded... >>>>>> 128:2 - Ronald Kunne - Wed 5 Jan 14:39:35 - VALID - (+0.5) >>>>>> I like Christian's resolution: do not waste! Therefore, no rule shal use the same word twice, starting with this one. And best wishes, ye'al! >>>>> Judgement: This rule is VALID. Style: Very much carries on where 128:1 left off. Members are obviously psychic (I had toyed with the idea of a 'green' or ecology round). This rule may help keep future rules short (which is good), but does not seem to be leading us anywhere (I think we are running out of things to avoid wasting!). Overall I regard this rule in much the same way as the last. For some reason (probably irrational, though maybe the apostrophe has something to do with it) I took immediate dislike to the last word. But it seems mean to penalise someone for their season's greetings, so I will stick to awarding this rule +0.5 Style. Perhaps I am tempting fate with my first two judgements - far better for a rule to be slightly underambitious than to ruin the round by doing too much. But I must confess that the round still hasnt grabbed me yet... >>>>>> 128:3 - Christian Leonhard - Wed 5 Jan 15:31:07 - INVALID - (+0.5) >>>>>> New years ofer oportunities for self-improvement. Every rule must establish a resolution to no longer do something our comite has done in the past. >>>>>> Judgement: This rule is INVALID. It tells only of something rules must (rather than must not) do and so fails to obey its own provision. But can one say that "Every rule must X" is the same as "Every rule must not (not X)"? I think not (not 'not not' :-)). To my mind "has done" implies some positive (though perhaps unwitting) act. Style: A nice short rule. Would have given a decent sense of direction to the round without being overly restrictive (it is early days after all). The idea of the committee improving on its past I like. As in the last rule I was struck by one of the words used - but "comite" raised a smile, and so earns this a small bonus. However, failure to follow its own resolution is not so hot, so this rule gets just +0.5 Style. >>>>>> 128:4 - Dwight McDowell - Wed 5 Jan 16:03:37 - INVALID - (+0.5) >>>>>> This new year let us al resolve to never again build mouse traps. Even rodents apreciate holiday, may ofer reward by litle pestilance bringing. Furthermore, in hopes of ensuring a sucesful rotation round the sun, folowing rules wil include brief statement declaring good gained by resolution therein contained. >>>>>> Judgement: This rule is INVALID (it contains two "by"s). Style: A strange feeling of deja vu swept over me as I read this rule. It could almost be a refugee from the last round (even down to the "rotation around the sun"). Nothing bad in that per se, though the "statement declaring good" bit was rather done to death last time. Continues the covert eco-friendly subtheme, and I liked the friendly rodents. Always good to see new players, so I follow the tradition (which seems to have died out recently?) of awarding a (small) first rule bonus. Which means this rule gets +0.5 Style. >>>>>> 128:5 - Christian Leonhard - Wed 5 Jan 16:57:23 - VALID - (-1.5) >>>>>> New years ofer oportunities for self-improvement; let us improve each other as wel. Every subsequent rule must establish a resolution to no longer do something done in any previous one of diferent authorship, which shal only afect said author. Ronald, don't single me out by name anymore -- I am shy and wil fel beter that way. >>>>>> Judgement: This rule is VALID. Style: As I started reading this rule, I thought I might have to penalise it for reposting. But the borrowing from 128:5 is small and has been given a nice twist. Unfortunately, there is still plenty that I am not so keen on... I am no fan of restrictions that only apply to single players - and certainly not of a plethora of such! They are prone to make for weak rounds as nobody has very many constraints. Either rules will have to contain multiple resolutions (and hence be long, which is not great) or we will have a rather anaemic round. Having thus weakened the round, Christian's own constraint is pretty bland even given its limited domain of effect! The rule also seems to limit us to things done in previous rules of this round - or at best by currently active members (what is the use of restricting Storm or Stephen Turner for example?), whereas before we had the whole of FRC history to range over. Of course to get round this (as mentioned above) one can include multiple resolutions (hint, hint!). Also, I am dubious (to say the least) about the idea of making resolutions that only apply to other people. Making "resolution" synonymous with "constraint" does seem to kill off any distinctive nature the theme may have had. I would be tempted to invalidate on this point, were it not for the existence of the sense of resolution as "The formal determination of any corporate body, or of any association of individuals; as the resolutions of a town or other meeting." (Websters 1828). So instead I can only penalise by awarding -1.5 Style. >>>>>> 128:6 - Aron Wall - Wed 5 Jan 18:07:13 - VALID - (+1.0) >>>>>> Quit whining, Christian. We don't want to hear about you. >>>>> Judgement: This rule is VALID. Style: Well, it does relatively little for the round, but any rule that makes me laugh aloud must have something going for it. Short (if hardly sweet) and almost certainly the bluntest rule I have ever seen. Is that a virtue? Probably not - but I shall give it +1.0 Style anyway. >>>>>> 128:7 - John M Goodman II - Wed 5 Jan 18:30:03 - INVALID - (+1.0) >>>>>> Even my monitor has chosen its new year's resolution: 1024 x pi (though it is dificult to se th scren now). Christian resolved to never again post so weak a restriction. I wil similarly limit al FRC members. Each future rule must restrict our entire comite in some way. >>>>>> Judgement: This rule is INVALID (there are two "to"s). Style: Another rule that made me smile. I liked both the restrictions - the former may be rather subjective, but that just makes life more interesting. And I approve of the means used to make the former a 'proper' resolution. However, I did warn that typos would be penalised, so the truncated "th" reduces the style award to +1.0. >>>>>> 128:8 - Christian Leonhard - Wed 5 Jan 18:32:44 - INVALID - (+1.0) >>>>>> Resolution: Have a beter atitude this year. Subsequent rules should sugest some kind of change which wil make us hapier in the new milenium. P.S. Not that I'm complaining, Aron, but don't tel me what to do. Then we'l al be hapy! >>>>>> Judgement: This rule is INVALID. Christian tells us that he is not complaining, which contravenes the *second* part of 128:6. Style: A reasonable rule. The "hapier in the new" bit is rather too similar to 128:4's "good gained" (which I have already noted is too much like last round for my taste). But I like Christian's engagement with Aron's rule. It feels like a school playground (I hope there wont be any fighting children...). Style +1.0. I should perhaps comment on my views on style and invalidity in this round. Blatant invalidity (eg repeated words or letters) tends to be punished (mildly), but I am more generous towards other failings. But I am a fickle judge, so do not take this as a promise! >>>>>> 128:9 - John M Goodman II - Wed 5 Jan 19:17:15 - INVALID - (+0.0) >>>>>> It sems Dwight has resolved that he wil not submit invalid rules. A meagre resolution, in my opinion. However, Mr. McDowell has also convinced the comite members to folow al resolutions as if they were their own. >>>>>> Judgement: 128:5 states that the resolution affecting the author of an earlier rule "shal only afect said author". This is contradicted by the last part of this rule, which is thus INVALID. Style: Another attempt to deal with the potential weakness of personalised restrictions, and again it fails. As that is all that the rule attempts to do, it can hardly be judged very successful, and so I give it +0.0 Style. >>>>>> 128:10 - John-Martin Lotz - Wed 5 Jan 20:21:46 - INVALID - (-1.0) >>>>>> This group must grow from it's past or live in a new future. To do so any rules shall one) fix a mistake or two) make some new way for growth. Rule 128.10 does the second. >>>>>> Judgement: There are a number of problems with this rule. It repeats the words "or","a" and "new", and does not follow 128:5. Thus it is INVALID. Style: With only four valid rules to date, to manage to fall foul of two of them is rather unfortunate. Even ignoring validity problems, I am afraid there is little in this rule which thrills me. -1.0 Style. >>>>>> 128:11 - Christian Leonhard - Thu 6 Jan 15:52:07 - INVALID - (+1.0) >>>>>> Judge not lest ye be judged as wel! Let us resolve that we shal no longer force resolutions upon others without also restricting ourselves in some manner (by way of a global constraint, for example). Pst, Aron! People respond beter to sugestions than comands; stop using imperative-mod verbs! >>>>>> Judgement: This rule is INVALID as it contains a repeated "n". Style: Another attempt to prevent weak rules, which unfortunately contains one small slip (since this will lead to a repost penalty, I do not penalise it here). While I approve of the intent, the excution seems pretty average, despite the biblical tone of the initial injunction. I presume that "mod" should be "mode" for which I make a small deduction. So +0.5 Style. [However, after posting this I was informed that "mod" stands for "mood". Although not keen on the compound word thus obtained, I see no reason to penalise for it and so remove the penalty to leave this with +1.0 Style.] >>>>>> 128:12 - Christian Leonhard - Thu 6 Jan 15:55:08 - VALID - (-2.0) >>>>>> Judge not lest ye be judged as wel! Let us resolve that we shal no longer force resolutions upon others without also restricting ourselves in some maner (by way of a global constraint, for example). Pst, Aron! People respond beter to sugestions than comands; stop using imperative-mod verbs! >>>>>> Judgement: This rule is VALID. Style: This is a repost to correct the obvious error in 128:11. As such it merits no new style award, just a repost penalty. If the repost had been in the light of someone else pointing out a flaw in 128:11 this would have been the maximum -3.0 (as there are no pressing time constraints on Christian at the moment). But as he noticed the flaw himself (indeed, only submitted 128:11 by mistake) I shall give this -2.0 instead. >>>>>> 128:13 - Aron Wall - Thu 6 Jan 19:18:04 - INVALID - (+1.0) >>>>>> I must quit making resolutions for people who could make one afterwards on me. >>>>>> Judgement: This rule is INVALID. 128:5 states that "Every subsequent rule must establish a resolution to no longer do something done in any previous one of *diferent* authorship, which shal only afect *said* author." (my emphasis). Aron restricts only himself. (Also, is "must" an imperative-mood verb?) Style: Short, and with a strong affect on Aron. But it would seem to mean that all Aron's future resolutions (for other people) would have no bite, which is not so good. (In fact, not quite, but the way round this is rather limiting.) I can sympathise with the sentiment expressed though, and since Aron generously tried to be harsh only to himself I give this rule +1.0 Style. >>>>>> 128:14 - Christian Leonhard - Thu 6 Jan 19:32:29 - VALID - (+1.5) >>>>>> Webster defines "resolution" as: 1) reducing something to simpler form, 2) subsidence of some pathological state (e.g., inflamation), 3) decision-making, 4) intent expresed formaly by an asembled group, or 5) point at which literary work's chief dramatic complication is worked out. Celebrate variety, life's spice! Our FRC hereby jointly resolves that every subsequent rule shal invoke a diferent meaning given here for this word than the previous valid one did. No future submision may use them al, because doing so would prevent anyone else from folowing upon its hels. P.S. Ronald should realy calm down and stop using exclamation points in his rules! >>>>>> Judgement: This rule is VALID. Style: I like the reasonably close paraphrase of Webster, and the introduction of some variety of resolutions (which should reinforce the presence of the theme in the round). If the rule had been slightly differently phrased I would be worried about its interaction with 128:5, but as it is there should be no problems. I am still waiting for an interesting personal restriction (128:7 would have been quite nice if valid), but this is a good solid rule. +1.5 Style. >>>>>> 128:15 - Ed Murphy - Sun 9 Jan 02:33:27 - INVALID - (+1.0) >>>>>> Everyone should start avoiding words that even *could* have doubled characters. Rules must now somehow restrict any two players the same way. Anton, you mustn't be so punctual about punctuation. But I won't bring it up again. 6) number of pixels displayed by a cathode ray tube >>>>>> Judgement: Does this rule fall foul 0f 128:14? Certainly, it seems to mis-understand the requirements of that rule - in that it gives yet another new definition of resolution, rather than realising that it just has to use a meaing from the five given in 128:14 not used by the last rule. But 128:14 seems best to fit meaning 4 on the list, while this rule fits best meaning 3, which is OK. More importantly, have I ever been "punctual about punctuation" in a rule? I am not even sure what it mean (how is one 'on time' about punctuation?), and have no recollection of where I might so have acted. Thus I give this rule a provisional judgement of INVALID, pending an indication by Ed of where exactly an example of such a rule of mine can be found... Since I have recieved no enlightenment from Ed (and can not see how to be punctual in the desrcibed manner) this rule is deemed INVALID. Style: Despite the apparent confusion concerning 128:14, I like this rule. It is suitably cheeky to try to impose upon the judge (even if I dont understand quite what the imposition is!). I also like the avoidance of words bit as it may be more troublesome than one might first think (in case this rule becomes valid, I shall not reveal the potential traps this sets...). Being without reasons the resolution(s?) seem a bit random, but that is a minor flaw. If valid I would award this +1.5 for successfully sailing close to the wind - but as it seems not to be I give it +1.0 Style. >>>>>> 128:16 - Ronald Kunne - Tue 11 Jan 12:54:57 - VALID - (+1.0) >>>>>> John shal no longer post on Wednesdays. Everyone must chose ASAP a diferent day not to submit his rule, I take Sunday. Could this resolve the resolutions for Anton? >>>>>> Judgement: This rule is VALID. Style: At first sight a rather plain rule - but (as long as we receive enough posts!) it may just lead to a bit more variety in our resolutions. I give it +1.0 Style. >>>>>> 128:17 - Christian Leonhard - Tue 11 Jan 18:08:42 - VALID - (+2.0) >>>>>> Shakespeare's Julius Caesar is resolved by Brutus' impaling himself upon his own sword. Take care, friends, for invalid rules, timed porly, can similarly cut short one's days! >From Act I, Scene 2: "Beware the ides of March!" Anyone electing to submit this quotation may not try submiting a rule on (apropriately enough) 3/14/2000. P.S. Et tu, Aron? You've been using four-leter words quite frely -- stop doing so, although you nedn't wash your mouth out with soap. >>>>>> Judgement: This rule is VALID. At first I thought that either Christian had not chosen a day on which to abstain from submitting, or that he had chosen Tuesday and thus rendered this rule inconsistent. But I now see that he has merely interpreted "day" rather differently than Ronald did.. Style: There is much to like in this rule. The Shakespeare quote is well integrated, and provides a framework around which the whole rule is unified. I like the play on the usual meaning of "four-leter words" too. However, of the two restrictions, the global one is very weak (really just there to satisfy Ronald) while Aron's will not have much effect, being submitted one minute after his eligibility expired! The stray ">" detracts a little too (but I will not penalise it). And far be it for a mere European to criticise the American ordering of month/day/year... :-) Having only just realised that this rule is in fact valid I shall give it a small bonus for keeping the judge on his toes! +2.0 Style. >>>>>> 128:18 - Jeremy D. Selengut - Tue 11 Jan 22:47:37 - INVALID - (+1.5) >>>>>> Perhaps you are aware that I am a Chemist. When scientists like me say "resolution" they mean resolving mixtures into their component molecules. Fals under definition number one, it sems. So, we must resolve dates and names. Future rules containing author apelations shal not include days of the wek, months or numbers refering to years. He who has previously admixed these disparate items while also composing more entries than anyone else this round wil refrain from using those above-resolved things henceforth. Saturday is my Sabath, thus, no posts then. >>>>>> Judgement: As far as validity is concerned, the only real question is if constraining Christian (or even identifying him indirectly) is to cause us to "hear about" him, contrary to 128:6. This was not a problem in the preceding rule as Christian carefully avoided referring to himself alone. But here I think it is - so this rule is INVALID (just as 128:8 was). Style: Another attractive rule. Again it is nicely unified, and the restrictions are relatively strong ones. Especially the Sabbath part - I like the notion that if Jeremy can't submit then, then neither can anyone else :-) I find it amusing that Jeremy did not heed Christian's warning from the last rule! +1.5 Style. >>>>>> 128:a - Aron Wall - Wed 12 Jan 00:04:36 - LATE - (N/A) >>>>>> Before our round is resolved, we ned interesting restrictions... Al rules wil now contain an ambiguity or lophole big enough to drive a truck through. Christian: tu quoque, sed quinque. The day not there yesteryear. >>>>>> This was posted by Aron at 18:06:39 on Tue 11 Jan *local time*, and so instead of arriving two minutes before his eligibility expired (as I presume he believed) it is in fact out of time. I had thought it was clear (since the recent addition to our posts of a rule date at the bottom from the server at troll.no) that all timings are recorded with reference to GMT. Since it may be relevant I will note that that is also the time zone I shall use to determine which day a rule has been sent on... Being out of time I give this neither a judgement nor a style rating. >>>>>> 128:19 - Ronald Kunne - Fri 14 Jan 13:44:40 - INVALID - (+0.5) >>>>>> I decide: no more discrimination from me. Al restrictions curently in force for some members (eligible or not) are henceforth aplicable to new rules. >>>>>> Judgement: This rule is INVALID for the same reason that 128:13 was. Ronald does not establish a resolution for someone else. Style: Perhaps I am overwhelemed by all the rule-related mail, but this post does not do much for me. Repeating Aron's error is not so good, so I give this +0.5 Style. >>>>>> 128:20 - Ronald Kunne - Mon 17 Jan 08:45:39 - INVALID - (+0.5) >>>>>> Imperative decisions: - Aron, words from foreign languages are prohibited. - any restrictions that aply to me shal be law for al, starting at non GMT today. >>>>>> Judgement: As was pointed out, my original judgement contained several errors. So here is a corrected version - though the original verdict still stands. I originally claimed that this rule does not restrict Ronald, but that is not the case (he cant now restrict only himself). I also wrongly claimed that we should compare meanings of "resolution" invoked in this rule with those in 128:16, having forgotten that 128:17 was valid. I am happy that the rule invokes a meaning of "resolution" - it does not seem necessary to me for the word to be present (invoke can mean "to put into effect or operation" [Websters]). But the only meaning I can find is meaning (3), "decision-making", which was also invoked in 128:17. Finally, a new reason for invalidity prompted by yet another comment posted to me. I invalidated 128:9 because it contradicted 128:5 - personalised resolutions "shall only afect said author". When Ronald's rule came in I somehow persuaded myself that (because of the time delay before all his restrictions became global, and the fact that he restricted Aron) this did not cause a problem here. But on reflection I do not understand what I could have been thinking! The second part of this rule says that all restrictions on Ronald shall affect everyone from noon. There exist personalised restrictions on Ronald to which this would apply, which contradicts the portion of 128:5 quoted above. So I still think this rule is INVALID. Style: Ronald cannot help his weak first restriction. But his second restriction seems to me to be yet another variant on the one that appeared in rules 7, 9, 11/12, and 15. I remind the committee that we are meant to "Celebrate variety, life's spice!" :-) Ronald's rule was too subtle for the judge which is good, but multiple invalidities is bad, so I give this a revised +0.5. Judge Anton -- Rule Date: 2000-01-17 11:51:31 GMT -- Rule Date: 2000-01-18 12:41:33 GMT