From owner-frc@troll.no Tue Feb 29 12:26:54 2000 Received: from root@svin12 [131.155.71.135] by svfile1.win.tue.nl (8.9.3) for id MAA07794 (ESMTP). Tue, 29 Feb 2000 12:26:54 +0100 (MET) Received: from lupinella.troll.no [195.0.254.19] by svin12.win.tue.nl (8.9.3) for id MAA19646 (ESMTP). Tue, 29 Feb 2000 12:26:42 +0100 (MET) Received: by troll.no id ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 12:26:03 +0100 Sender: owner-frc@troll.no Precedence: list X-Loop: frc X-Authentication-Warning: mathpc12.city.ac.uk: agc owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 11:26:55 +0000 (GMT) From: Anton Cox To: frc@troll.no Subject: Round 130 - Final Summary Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO Round 130 Theme - Fraud, Rivalry and Corruption A particularly twisted round, with plenty of fraud (not to mention rivalry and corruption) both in and out of rules. Indeed it is hard to know which of the three elements of the theme was most prominent. I still dont understand how I managed to end up with so few credits though... Everyone displayed plenty of deviousness - let no one say we are a trustworthy bunch! - but in the end Jesse emerged as the sole survivor. This was particularly appropriate as he was the only member in the latter half of the round who would not normally have been ineligible. His steady string of solid sensible rules ensured that he also retained his Wizard's title for the next round too. And I dont think anyone ever noticed his cunning trap in 130:15... But an honourable(?) mention must go to Aron, who (for better or worse) provided most of the fireworks in the round. Despite being penalised no less than 8.5 style marks, he still ended with a very healthy +6.0! Well, that is more than enough from me. I am off to go lie down in a dark room somewhere.... Judge Anton Player Eligibility expires Style ---------------------------------------------------- Jesse Welton 29 Feb 02:10:42 +8.0 Ronald Kunne no longer eligible +3.5 Aron Wall no longer eligible +6.0 John Goodman no longer eligible -1.0 Christian Leonhard no longer eligible +3.0 Xylen no longer eligible +3.5 Jeremy Selengut no longer eligible +0.5 Everyone else no longer eligible +0.0 Rule Signed by Actual author Posted at Judgement Style ------------------------------------------------------------------ 130:1 Christian Jesse 7 Feb 12:26:43 VALID +1.5 130:2 Christian Christian 7 Feb 14:47:06 VALID +1.0 130:3 John John 7 Feb 23:37:23 INVALID -1.0 130:4 Jesse Jesse 8 Feb 14:23:26 VALID +1.0 130:5 Christian Christian 8 Feb 15:30:27 VALID +1.5 130:6 Jeremy Jesse 8 Feb 16:15:23 VALID +1.5 130:7 Jesse Jesse 8 Feb 19:00:39 VALID +1.0 130:8 Jesse Jesse 9 Feb 14:34:39 VALID +0.5 130:9 Xylen Xylen 9 Feb 20:26:09 VALID +1.0 130:10 Christian Christian 9 Feb 22:20:44 VALID +0.5 130:11 Aron Aron 10 Feb 05:46:34 INVALID +0.0 130:12 Jesse Xylen 10 Feb 21:44:30 INVALID +2.0 130:a Ronald Ronald 14 Feb 12:28:51 OUT OF TIME n/a (*) 130:13 Ronald Ronald 14 Feb 12:28:51 VALID +0.5 130:14 Nobody(!) Xylen 14 Feb 19:59:22 INVALID +0.5 130:b Xylen Xylen 15 Feb 00:31:19 OUT OF TIME n/a 130:15 Jesse Jesse 15 Feb 15:00:09 VALID +1.0 130:16 Ronald Ronald 16 Feb 16:44:44 INVALID +1.0 130:17 Christian Christian 16 Feb 20:58:10 INVALID +1.5 130:18 Ronald Ronald 19 Feb 11:15:42 VALID +1.0 130:19 Ronald Aron 21 Feb 21:28:12 VALID +2.0 130:20 Aron Jesse 22 Feb 02:10:42 VALID +1.5 130:21 Aron Aron 22 Feb 16:12:12 INVALID +1.0 130:22 Aron Aron 23 Feb 00:53:35 INVALID -2.0 130:23 Aron Aron 23 Feb 01:00:19 INVALID +1.0 130:24 Aron Aron 23 Feb 15:45:51 INVALID +2.5 130:25 Aron Aron 24 Feb 00:49:31 INVALID +1.0 (*) Became 130:13, by proposal 130:A. Letter counts for valid rules: 130:1 - 77 130:6 - 639 130:10 - 621 130:19 - 391 130:2 - 257 130:7 - 143 130:13 - 283 130:20 - 292 130:4 - 137 130:8 - 69 130:15 - 514 130:5 - 359 130:9 - 357 130:18 - 218 Proposal Proposer Posted at Result (for/tot) Style ------------------------------------------------------------------ 130:Z Aron 8 Feb 01:29:37 FAILED (3/6) +3.0 (*) 130:Y Aron 10 Feb 05:57:57 FAILED (1/5) -2.0 (*) 130:A Ronald 14 Feb 13:12:38 PASSED (5/5) +1.0 130:B John 15 Feb 14:09:38 PASSED (5/6) +1.0 130:C Aron 16 Feb 23:39:54 PASSED (7/8) +2.0 130:D Jeremy 17 Feb 19:39:19 FAILED (4/9) +1.5 130:E Jeremy 17 Feb 19:54:44 FAILED (2/8) +1.0 130:F Jeremy 17 Feb 20:02:07 PASSED (7/9) +0.5 130:G John 17 Feb 20:47:50 FAILED (2/8) -1.0 130:H Jeremy 18 Feb 18:48:08 FAILED (3/7) -1.5 130:I Jeremy 18 Feb 19:15:23 FAILED (2/7) -1.0 130:J Aron 18 Feb 21:01:56 RETRACTED (n/a) +1.0 130:K Aron 18 Feb 21:01:56 FAILED (3/6) -1.5 130:L Christian 19 Feb 04:23:42 FAILED (1/6) -1.5 130:M Aron 26 Feb 01:47:34 FAILED (1/3) +1.0 130:N Aron 26 Feb 01:52:45 FAILED (1/3) -2.0 (*) These awards were included in the aggregate style award for 130:11, and are recorded here only for reference purposes. Proposals: The first two proposals were hidden by Aron, who faked the 'Rule Date' segment of our posts, then added his proposals after much blank space at the bottom. A cunning plan, and an excellent piece of forgery! >>>>>> 130:Z - Aron Wall - Tue 8 Feb 01:29:37 - FAILED - (3/6) - (+3.0) (*) >>>>>> This is an overrule proposal which shall have force only until the end of round 130: Any player (including the Judge) who sends a post to the FRC with the magic sentence in it during the voting period for this proposal shall become a member of the High Ruling Class (HRC) for the rest of the round, provided that they do not attribute the magic sentence to anyone else. No new players may join after that point. Said members may INVALIDATE any rule not posted by a member of the HRC, provided that they do so before it is judged. This proposal may not be repealed/changed in part or in whole for one month or until the end of round 130, whichever comes first, unless all HRC members vote FOR the change. The magic sentence is "All power corrupts, and absolute power corupts absolutely." >>>>>> For: Aron, Christian, Xylen Against: Anton, Jesse, Garth (*) Note that the style award was absorbed into that for 130:11. >>>>>> 130:Y - Aron Wall - Thu 10 Feb 05:57:57 - FAILED - (1/5) - (-2.0) (*) >>>>>> This proposal only affects Round 130. The following things shall take effect immediately, in order. a) the Judge shall recieve 80 Style points. b) Aron Wall becomes eligible, if he was not so already. c) All other players become ineligible. >>>>>> For: Aron Against: Anton, Xylen, Jesse, Garth, Christian (*) Note that the style award was absorbed into that for 130:11. >>>>>> 130:A - Ronald Kunne - Mon 14 Feb 13:12:38 - PASSED - (5/5) - (+1.0) >>>>>> For the purpose of round 130 only, the Judge may extend the eligibily of a player by five minutes. >>>>>> For: Ronald, Christian, Jeremy, Xylen, Jesse Against: - Abstain: Anton Style: Ronald's short, simple proposal seems in keeping with the round (giving the judge the power to act on a whim), and was passed unanimously - always a good sign. >>>>>> 130:B - John Goodman - Tue 15 Feb 14:09:38 - PASSED - (5/6) - (+1.0) >>>>>> John Goodman's eligibility will be reinstated for 5 days from the passing of this proposal. Half of his remaining credits (currently 10,000) will be distributed evenly among all players voting for this proposal. >>>>>> For : John, Christian, Jesse, Aron, Ronald Against: Xylen Abstain: Anton Style: John managed to extend his eligibility in a manner wholy in keeping with the theme of the round. No longer original, due to 130:A, but not just a slavish imitation either. >>>>>> 130:C - Aron Wall - Wed 16 Feb 23:39:54 - PASSED - (7/8) - (+2.0) >>>>>> Since I (Aron Wall) am not willing to give up all of the 10,000 credits I'll have when I get reinstated with 7 days eligibility from this proposals passage, I will have to sell myself into slavery to pay the cost. I may only be owned by those players who vote FOR this proposal. After the end of the voting period the Judge shall select a FOR-voting player to own me by any method he chooses. The player who owns me may: a) post fantasy rules in my name, which shall be treated in all respects as if I had submitted and initiated them. I shall recieve all rewards normally. They shall have their eligibility/style increased for the rule only if they wish it. b) sell/give me to any FOR-voter who has not yet owned me. c) free me from slavery. After the posting of an INVALID rule in my name by my owner, I shall aimmediately be given by the Judge to a different FOR-voter. I may never be owned by a player twice. >>>>>> For : Aron, Xylen, Ronald, John, Jeremy, Jesse, Christian Against: Andre Abstain: Anton Style: Another stylish proposal from Aron. After 130:A and 130:B he ran the risk of boring us with yet another attempt to reenter the round. But slavery was an inspired way of doing so, and was rewarded with a high vote in favour. Perhaps a little long and complicated, but worth it. >>>>>> 130:D - Jeremy Selengut - Thu 17 Feb 19:39:19 - FAILED - (4/9) - (+1.5) >>>>>> This overrule shall only be in effect for the duration of round 130. Henceforth, the Judge may declare Overrule proposals VOID if they are inconsistent with the principles set forth in this overrule. There shall sbe no appeal of the Judge's fiat in such matters. The judge need not tally the votes for any overrule declared VOID, nor shall any such overrule have any force to modify the R.O.'s. The principles: a) no subsequent overrule may supercede, cause exemption from or otherwise diminish the effects of this one. b) no subsequent overrule may cause a member's period of eligibility to be extended if that member's eligibility had already been so modified at least once during this round. c) no subsequent overrule may cause a member's period of eligibility to be extended if the method, mechanism, ruse, trick, lure, deception, chicanery or threat utilized to get others to vote for that overrule is, in the Judge's opinion, significantly the same as a prior such overrule proposal. >>>>>> For : Jesse, Jeremy, Anton, Ronald Against: John, Aron, Christian, Xylen, Andre Style: I liked this proposal (though most did not). Forcing proposals to re-enter to be original is good, and I like the phrasing of it all. Does it give the Judge to much power? I dont really care! >>>>>> 130:E - Jeremy Selengut - Thu 17 Feb 19:54:44 - FAILED - (2/8) - (+1.0) >>>>>> Upon passage of this overrule, Jeremy will become eligible to play in round 130 for seven days and any days subsequent to that should he earn them by the posting of VALID rules. AND NOW, IN TECHNICOLOR, OUR NEWEST CORRUPTION, VOTER FRAUD! Those members who vote FOR this proposal (counted by the Judge at the time of its passage), may, if they are the first to do so, vote for any proposal as if they were Jeremy himself in addition to their own vote. If no one uses Jeremy's vote, he may use it himself. Those members who vote AGAINST this proposal (counted by the Judge at the time of its passage) may be treated by those who voted for it in the same way that Jeremy is treated in the paragraph above. >>>>>> For : Jeremy, Christian Against: Xylen, Ronald, Jesse, Andre, Aron, John Style: Jeremy tries yet another variant on re-entry. I did think this theme had been done to death, but he finds another nice slant. Not enticing enough to pass, but I enjoyed it. >>>>>> 130:F - Jeremy Selengut - Thu 17 Feb 20:02:07 - PASSED - (7/9) - (+0.5) >>>>>> The Judge may, for the duration of round 130, award style points (-3 to +3) for proposals. The Judge may if he so desires do this retroactively so long as such awards were not already included in awards for previously posted rules. >>>>>> For : Jeremy, Jesse, John, Aron, Anton, Christian, Andre Against: Xylen, Ronald Style: After all the proposals to date, this was a most reasonable idea, and allows me to reward or penalise the various schemes. Since most of the committee seem to have given up posting rules ('so passe'), this gives the judge something more to do than just be a glorified voting clerk. >>>>>> 130:G - John Goodman - Thu 17 Feb 20:47:50 - FAILED - (2/8) - (-1.0) >>>>>> All players who are ineligible as of the passing of this proposal become eligible and will have 10,000 credits. There is no longer an eligibility time limit on any play for round 130. If any player ever has 0 credits, or less credits than any debts they may have, that player becomes ineligible. If 5 days pass with no valid rules being posted, the round ends and the player with the most credits becomes the next judge. >>>>>> For : John, Xylen Against: Aron, Anton, Christian, Ronald, Jesse, Andre Style: I do not like this proposal at all. Making everyone eligible seems to doom the round to a long lingering death (and does rather run counter to the "rivalry" theme!). Still, it was at least original, so is not penalised too harshly. >>>>>> 130:H - Jeremy Selengut - Fri 18 Feb 18:48:08 - FAILING - (3/7) - (-1.5) >>>>>> This overrule shall only be in effect for the duration of round 130. a) no subsequent overrule may supercede, cause exemption from or otherwise diminish the effects of this one. b) no subsequent overrule may cause a member's period of eligibility to be extended if that member's eligibility had already been so modified (by an overrule) at least once during this round. Any overrule which contradicts either a or b above shall have no effect. >>>>>> For : Jeremy, Xylen, Anton Against: John, Ronald, Andre, Jesse Style: Basically a rehash of 130:D. So no new gains in style here. As it happens, all the best bits of 130:D have been removed, and what is left becomes pretty uninspiring (for which I impose a small penalty). Henceforth I deduct an automatic -1.0 for reposting proposals (unless with dramatic modifications). >>>>>> 130:I - Jeremy Selengut - Fri 18 Feb 19:15:23 - PASSING - (2/7) - (-1.0) >>>>>> Upon passage of this overrule, Jeremy will become eligible to play in round 130 for four (4) days and any days subsequent to that should he earn them by the posting of VALID rules. AND NOW, IN TECHNICOLOR, OUR NEWEST CORRUPTION, VOTER FRAUD! Those members who vote FOR this proposal (counted by the Judge at the time of its passage), may, if they are the first to do so, vote for any proposal as if they were Jeremy himself in addition to their own vote. Only if no one else uses Jeremy's vote may he may use it himself. Once a FOR-voter has used Jeremy's vote he must withdraw any subsequent votes if another FOR-voter who has used Jeremy's vote fewer times expresses the desire to use it. Once Jeremy's vote has been properly cast on a particular proposal, only that member who cast it may change it. Those members who vote AGAINST this proposal (counted by the Judge at the time of its passage) may be treated by those who voted for it in the same way that Jeremy is treated in the paragraph above and may not, under any circumstances, be allowed to have their eligibility extended by further overrules in this round. Furthermore, those voting FOR this proposal shall receive equal shares of all of Jeremy's credits -- with the exception of those utilizing conditional or algorithmic voting schemes who, being without a spine, do not deserve such an award. In the event that 130:E passes, this proposal is null and void. >>>>>> For : Jeremy, Xylen Against: John, Jesse, Aron, Ronald, Andre Abstain: Anton Style: An improvement on 130:E, but only slightly, and I rather feel that the changes made have been implemented to make it more voter-friendly. >>>>>> 130:J - Aron Wall - Fri 18 Feb 21:01:56 - RETRACTED - (n/a) - (+1.0) >>>>>> Starting one day from now, any player whose proposal fails shall be utterly voided and nullified. They shall simply cease to exist until the conclusion of Round 130. Starting 3 days from now, any player who retracts a proposal shall be similarly nullified. Just in case: if there are ever no eligible players in existance, Aron Wall shall become eligible (and if necessary recreated). Round 130 will then end. However, if this paragraph would nullify this proposal, it shall have no effect. >>>>>> ( For : Aron, John, Xylen Against: Christian, Ronald, Andre, Jesse ) Style: A potent threat to all proposal posters! But I cant say I approve of unpopularity at the ballot box removing someone from the round. I like the idea of recreating Aron though... >>>>>> 130:K - Aron Wall - Fri 18 Feb 21:01:56 - FAILING - (3/6) - (-1.5) >>>>>> Just like 130:J except: 1) All proposals before this one are exempt. 2) Proposals after 130:K cannot be retracted. >>>>>> For : Xylen, John, Christian Against: Andre, Jesse, Anton Style: Much as with 130:H, this is a rehash of an earlier proposal with all the bite removed. Bland is bad! >>>>>> 130:CRL - Christian Leonhard - Sat 19 Feb 04:23:42 - FAILING - (1/6) - (-1.5) >>>>>> Christian is granted permanent eligibility for the duration of round 130; any reference in any rule, RO, or proposal to reduction or elimination of player eligibility does not apply to him. Christian may not win round 130, however; if he should ever be one of only two remaining eligible players, the other player shall be considered the "sole remaining eligible player" for purposes of ending the round and determining victory. >>>>>> For : Christian Against: Aron, John, Andre, Jesse, Anton Style: The only thing going for this proposal is that it is not a repost of one that has gone before. Permanent eligibility is awarded with no attempt to be stylish, and then Christian has the chutzpah to exempt himself from juding next time as well. This cheek is all that saves him from a still harsher verdict; after so many proposals, I think at this stage any new ones have to contain something a bit special to get my blessing... >>>>>> 130:M - Aron Wall - Sat 26 Feb 01:47:34 - FAILED - (1/4) - (+1.0) >>>>>> As soon as this proposal passes, a member of the FRC shall be chosen to be the winner of this round. This player shall be chosen in the following way: 1) Having that player win the round must be consistant with the R.O.'s and Round 130 Overrules. 2) If possible, said player must be eligible. 3) Among said players the one with the most credits shall be chosen. 4) If there is a tie for credits the tied player with the most style shall be chosen. Said player will then be considered the sole remaining eligible player of this round. This rule supercedes any other clause in the R.O.'s about determining the winner of Round 130. >>>>>> For : Aron Against: Ronald, Anton, Andre Style: Fair enough - given that Ronald still has a chance to submit when it was sent. As he did not, I vote against (as the round has ended anyway), but it would not have been a bad way to round everything off. >>>>>> 130:N - Aron Wall - Sat 26 Feb 01:52:45 - FAILED - (1/3) - (-2.0) >>>>>> That 130:25 be declared VALID. Since 130:16 does not affect Ronald's eligibility, its status shall not be changed--but Ronald shall receive 2 bonus style points with his next VALID rule in compensation for the Judge brutally striking it down. >>>>>> For : Aron Against: Ronald, Anton Style: Since Jesse made entirely clear at the time his objections to my judgement of 130:16 (even concluding his final email on the subject with "Well, I'll leave it at that. If no one else speaks up in support of my position, I'll just let it drop..") I dont see how any member can claim to have been unaware of the issue at the time. So why did Aron not post a proposal to change the judgement then (or at least agree with Jesse)? I rather wonder if his belated support is not in part due to the effect it would have on his own rule's eligibility... I find that inherently unstylish, so I am afraid that it is another big style penalty! and finally..... Rules and Judgements: >>>>>> 130:1 - Jesse Welton - Mon 7 Feb 12:26:43 - VALID - (+1.5) >>>>>> Every rule must be signed by an eligible player. I hereby transfer 1000 credits to Jesse. -Christian >>>>>> Judgement: VALID. Style: A short simple start to the round. Absolutely on theme, and setting things up nicely for the future. +1.5 Style. >>>>>> 130:2 - Christian Leonhard - Mon 7 Feb 14:47:06 - VALID - (+1.0) >>>>>> Dear Judge: Please find enclosed a gift of 1000 credits, my way of saying thanks in advance for your sure-to-be-fair-minded judging of this round. Please don't think this a clumsy attempt to bribe you into exempting me from this round's length tax of 10 credits per letter; I'm sure you were already planning on doing so. -Christian >>>>>> Judgement: VALID. Style: This is what we like to see! Flattery may not get you very far - but hard credits just might :-). These credits seem pretty benign at the moment, but I am sure that wont last for long. Christian may yet regret the close to this rule, - I know I already quail at the thought of counting letters (if it proves important I hope you will all keep rules short)! Despite this, I give him +1.0 Style. >>>>>> 130:3 - John Goodman - Mon 7 Feb 23:37:23 - INVALID - (-1.0) >>>>>> See attached *110 >>>>>> Judge's comment: The attachment sent with this message reads: >>>>>> The CRS' (Committee Revenue Service) computer system doesn't check attachments for number of letters, so they'll never know the rule was actually longer than 11 letters. And I'm including my *110 (for those less literate FRC members, * is the universal symbol for payment of credits) to pay for the letters contained in the main email so that they don't get suspicious. We all know that the CRS allows you to wait as much as one week before paying taxes (but you can't wait any longer), but if you pay early you can avoid scrutiny. And all you FRC members, I just heard that the CRS passed a resolution requiring that all rules list the posting member's total credits owned in the format ~# (where ~ is the credit symbol and # is the number of credits). -John >>>>>> Judgement: What a can of worms this rule is. My main worries were: (1) Is the attachment part of the rule and (2) If so, can it exempt itself from taxes in the manner suggested? (3) Do attachments count as "public posting"? (especially if there is anyone out there who has problems reading them - Elm users perhaps?) Fortunately however, none of this matters, as I have just spotted a reason to invalidate the rule. The CRS resolution requires that *all* rules list the posting member's total credits owned - which is not true of 130:1 or 130:2. So this rule is INVALID. Style: John certainly deserves credit for a most creative attempt to stretch the bounds of posting. Although I find the result undesirable, perhaps I should not hold this against the rule. However, it is long and a bit unwieldy. Plus, even if "owned" should be "owed", I have to worry about how the 110 credits included to pay for the letters used can be reconciled with the total credits requirement... I think I shall give this -1.0 Style. Note: I see from the ROs that "The Judge may determine the location and nature of the official committee forum." As I am concerned that attachments may cause all manner of problems for the smooth running of this round, and may not be universally readable, I warn members that from this point on I shall regard the nature of the official committee forum as being such that attachments do not qualify as (parts of) postings to it... >>>>>> 130:4 - Jesse Welton - Tue 8 Feb 14:23:26 - VALID - (+1.0) >>>>>> All players begin the round with &10000 (10000 credits). No player may ever have less than &0. Each transaction is associated with a rule, and occurs at the time of the rule's posting. -Jesse >>>>>> Judgement: VALID. Style: Another nice short rule from Jesse. Gives credits some bite, but not so much that we are overly restricted at this stage. Simple yet potent rules like this are just what I was hoping for this round. Perhaps not the most exciting rule ever, but good solid stuff. Maybe I am mean, but I will save the large style awards for rules that cause a little more fireworks. This gets +1.0 Style. >>>>>> 130:5 - Christian Leonhard - Tue 8 Feb 15:30:27 - VALID - (+1.5) >>>>>> Private note to Judge: Thanks again for that peek at the FRC security protocols. I've been able to hack the transaction manager as we discussed, such that 10% of all credit transfers will be redirected into my private account. Your 10% cut of my take will be delivered per our prior arrangement. We may want to consider a new channel of communication, however; I'm worried that one of us may slip up and accidentally post publicly to the group... -Christian <<<<< Judgement: VALID. Style: Well, thats blown it! Still, my little cut ensures that this rule is worth +1.5 Style. (I obviously should learn to drive a harder bargain...) >>>>>> 130:6 - Jesse Welton - Tue 8 Feb 16:15:23 - VALID - (+1.5) >>>>>> Misrepresenting one's identity, for instance by signing a rule with another player's name, constitutes fraud. Fraud is detectable only from the content of a rule and the known game state. Unless a fraud is detectable at the time of its commission, the rule is processed, financially, as though the signature on the rule represents the rule's true author. If the fraud is detectable, the rule is processed as though the true author is the player who posted the rule, and any non-automatic transactions initiated by the rule are voided. If a fraud is detectable at the time of commission, or becomes detectable within two days of that time, the perpetrator is fined &2000. Every rule must contain the name of the rule's true author. Not that it's related, but Jesse's rules never cost him more than &2000. -Jeremy >>>>>> Judgement: VALID. Style: Yet another nice rule from Mr J. Adding an element of risk to the act of fraud is a nice touch. And it tidies up a little loose end, which is good. Perhaps a little long - although Jeremy can afford it! :-) I think +1.5 Style. >>>>>> 130:7 - Jesse Welton - Tue 8 Feb 19:00:39 - VALID - (+1.0) >>>>>> No player can commit a given crime (eg, fraud) in one rule, and eir next. The crime of embezzlement is any payment to one's own account that is not initiated by the paying party. -Jesse >>>>>> Judgement: VALID. Style: Yet another "Yet another nice rule from Mr J." from the Judge. So far he has carved out a very pleasing little set of rules for the round - I hope that others will be inspired to respond. A good solid +1.0 for this rule. >>>>>> 130:8 - Jesse Welton - Wed 9 Feb 14:34:39 - VALID - (+0.5) >>>>>> Each rule earns a &250 bonus per full day of the author's eligibility at its posting. -Jesse >>> Judgement: VALID. Style: This rule nicely deals with one obvious problem with the round so far - the (rapidly) diminishing supply of credits. Jesse's third consecutive rule: bu the law of diminishing returns this gets +0.5 Style. >>>>>> 130:9 - Xylen - Wed 9 Feb 20:26:09 - VALID - (+1.0) >>>>>> The FRC Security Systems seems to have a small leak. I have been able to access that leak and transfer &1111 credits into my account from Christian's account. However in the process, I triggered an alarm to the Fantasy Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and they are now alerted to the problem. In the future, all rules must mention a law enforcement agency responsible for investigating any crimes allegedly committed by the author of the rule. Xylen >>>>>> Judgement: VALID. Style: I like the FBI, but am not so keen on the name a law enforcement agency bit (though having had the chance to read 130:11 before writing this, perhaps I am!). Always nice to have a new member, so a traditional (small) bonus for first rule. +1.0 Style. >>>>>> 130:10 - Christian Leonhard - Wed 9 Feb 22:20:44 - VALID - (+0.5) >>>>>> It has come to the attention of the FRC Financial Regulatory Committee (FRC/FRC) that certain members of the committee may be attempting to obtain undue advantage in the current round by currying favor with the judge. Inside sources indicate that, at any given time, the player who has provided the judge with the most in the way of bribes is designated the 'favorite'. Furthermore, it is suggested that this favorite may designate another player as his 'rival' (he might, for example, say something like "Jesse is now my rival"). The committee should be aware that, such is the judge's perfidy, any rule which would result in the current favorite's rival having a higher credit balance than the favorite will be considered invalid. An investigation is underway. -Christian >>>>>> Judgement: VALID. Style: A little bit complicated (after all, we are still in the first week!) for my tastes. And the prospect of finally having to keep track of all those credit transfers is a grim one. I would be most unhappy if the round were to be killed off becuase it turned into a tedious accountancy test. Still perfidious judges are right up my street. So I shall give this +0.5 Style. Remark: In fact, so much do I dislike the prospect of accountancy testing I am prepared to consider posting credit ratings at regular intervals. There are obvious disadvantages to this however, and so I shall wait to see what the rest of the committee thinks before I make a final decision. There are in any case a couple of questions over the implementation of the transfers already described that might need to be aired... >>>>>> 130:11 - Aron Wall - Thu 10 Feb 05:46:34 - INVALID - (-2.0) [became +0.0] >>>>>> I borrow an infinite amount of credits from the Financial Resources Commission. I pay my finite character tax for this rule, leaving an infinite amount of credits. Then I split my cash into four equal pieces. One goes to the Judge as a bribe, one goes to the bank to pay of my loan, one goes to the bank to pay my interest, and the last remains in my bank account. Total credits now owned: infinity. Since I am the most ruthless of any of us, only I may initiate such "infinity" schemes (perfectly legal if a bit immoral). -Aron C. Wall >>>>>> I designate Jesse as my Rival I designate Jeremy as my Rival (#2) I designate Xylen as my Rival (#3) Judgement: This rule mentions the Financial Resources Comission. First question: is this a law enforcement agency? No, Aron tells us it is a bank. Second question: does Aron need to mention such an agency? At first sight no, as he does not seem to have allegedly committed any crime. But not so fast, I think, he might have done. 130:7 tells us that "The crime of embezzlement is any payment to one's own account that is not initiated by the paying party." Aron tells us that he borrows an infinite amount - which seems to me to be a payment *initiated* by Aron, rather than the paying party. Aron tells us he has done so, which certainly counts as alleging it in my book. So he needs to tell us of an agency, does not do so, and thus this rule is INVALID. Style: I really, really, really hate this rule. All to often (in my opinion) Aron submits rules which seem designed to undo most of what has been built up by the other players. Such as this abberation. The status of his declaration of rivals is doubly dubious (why more than one, and why not in the rule? - I rather think they are irrelevant outside of it). Which is a shame, because as I cycled in to work, I was hoping that Aron would submit a rule so that I could give him the +3 style bonus that he deserves. I still shall, but combine it with -3 for this rule, and -2 for repeating an old trick which tries to spoil everyone elses fun. The first and last bonuses I will explain at an appropriate time - for now I will merely note for the record that this is *not* the "win at any cost" round, and blatant attempts to trivially render all other players ineligible run counter to the spirit of the FRC. Just winning is no fun, it is the rules created on route that count! Most of you are probably a bit bemused by this - I will explain later... [Later the proposals were revealed, and I decided that I had been a little harsh. The rule was clever if rather spoiling the effect of some others, so -3 became -1. Also: although unstylish, proposal 130:Y should not be punished here for its undesirable aims, and so -2 became -1. But repetition is bad, so another -1 brings it back to -2! Thus the revised style award is +0.0 Style. >>>>>> 130:12 - Xylen - Thu 10 Feb 21:44:30 - INVALID - (+2.0) >>>>>> In consideration of the fact that the Judge has allegedly been accepting bribes, and has not denied this fact, the FRC Justice department has instigated an investigation into Judge Cox's financial dealings. To prove his innocence, Judge Cox has been ordered to make a full disclosure of all funds transferred to and from emself for the past FRC week, and to provide FRC records revealing any and all monetary transactions of any other active players during or after that period. -Jesse >>>>>> Judgement: If I understand things correctly, this rule was in fact posted by Xylen. I cannot tell from the header, but a private note suggests this may be the case. I will judge it as so (for now, anyway). As it is a forgery, and does not include the author's real name, it is INVALID. Style: Yet another way to forge a rule! Would wreak havoc in the round if it was repeated on a regular basis - but as a one-off I like the idea. Amusingly, it means that Christian's attempt to invalidate this rule, which I first said failed as he was too early, and then said had failed as 130:Z never passed, in fact would have failed in any event because the rule was written by another member of the HRC! Unfortunately the rule itself does not add much. The effect it would have had seems negligible (what do all these demands of the judge actually do for us?). Still, forgery is good (at least in this round) so I shall award +2.0 Style. >>>>>> 130:a - Ronald Kunne - Mon 14 Feb 12:28:51 - OUT OF TIME - (n/a) [Became 130:13 by proposal 130:A, and was judged VALID - (+0.5)] >>>>>> A credit transaction takes places from a source to a destination. If source or destination are not explicitly mentioned, it is supposed to be the Fantasy Repository of Credits. The total number of credits in circulation is 100000. I haven't committed any crimes yet, but that doesn't seem to prevent the Fraud Squad from looking into my background. --Ronald >>>>>> Unfortunately this rule arrived just out of time. And so originally received neither judgement nor style award. However, Proposal 130:A reinstated this rule (as I did choose to extend Ronald's validity), and so produced Judgement: I had a little period of doubt concerning the limit on credits. We are told in 130:4 that all players begin the round with 10,000 credits. Are there more than 10 players? In the end I decided that the only players that we know about at any given time *as far as the rules in a round* are concerned are those who have been named in a rule, or who have submitted one. So this rule is VALID (pending the passing of 130:A). Style: Ties up a number of loose ends, and could cause some slips later. But not exactly an earth-shattering rule. Ronald was rushing to submit in time - though as he did not quite make it I will not make too many allowances for this! I like the way the Fraud Squad pick on Ronald regardless of his innocence. Overall I think +0.5 Style. >>>>>> 130:14 - Xylen - Mon 14 Feb 19:59:22 - INVALID - (+0.5) >>>>>> After spending the past few days in interview sessions with investigators of the Fraud Division of the Fantasy Bureau of Investigation, I have learned something that I feel obligated to pass on to other members of the FRC criminal consortium. Credits have a serial number embedded in them and they can be traced. Members of the consortium are strongly urged to indicate a method of laundering their funds to avoid the tracing. Failure to properly launder funds can be grounds for removal from the consortium and loss of all consortium privileges. Since I benefit from certain unnamed privileges, I have invested all of my credits in an Import/Export business. In return for my investment, I receive 10% of the daily profits or &1000 per day, whichever is greater, and all of it is untraceable. >>>>>> Judgement: As Jesse pointed out, this is unsigned, and so INVALID. Style: Tracing credits. An idea that must strike fear into the hearts of many! However, I cant say the rule particularly thrills me. 'Strongly urging' has little actual effect, while the 10% or &1000 seems impossible to determine, given we know not what the profits are. I dont see much here to effect the round, so shall give this just +0.5 Style. >>>>>> 130:b - Xylen - Tue 15 Feb 00:31:19 - OUT OF TIME - (n/a) >>>>>> After spending the past few days in interview sessions with investigators of the Fraud Division of the Fantasy Bureau of Investigation, I have learned something that I feel obligated to pass on to other members of the FRC criminal consortium. Credits have a serial number embedded in them and they can be traced. Members of the consortium are strongly urged to indicate a method of laundering their funds to avoid the tracing. Failure to properly launder funds can be grounds for removal from the consortium and loss of all consortium privileges. Since I benefit from certain unnamed privileges, I have invested all of my credits in an Import/Export business. In return for my investment, I receive 10% of the daily profits or &1000 per day, whichever is greater, and all of it is untraceable. --Xylen >>>>>> Xylen lost one day's eligibility for an invalid last rule, and so this repost is out of time. NB: Even if this rule had been sent directly to the list as planned, I note that it would still have been late - Jesse did not point out the error in 130:14 till a minute or so after eligibility had expired... surely no coincidence? :-) >>>>>> 130:15 - Jesse Welton - Tue 15 Feb 15:00:09 - VALID - (+1.0) >>>>>> As executive of the FRC/FRC, my investigation into the Judge's behavior has uncovered the fact that he only grants tax exemptions on individual rules in which he is bribed to do so. As he has agreed to donate all his bribe income to the FRC/FRC Executive Payroll Charity, no charges will be pressed for this minor infraction. Solely as a test of the system, I'm bribing him &1000 to exempt this rule from the letter tax. No two law enforcement agencies investigate any given sort of crime. The FBl investigates fraud and extortion. The favorite may hold no salaried position. Ron and John, pay me &1000 for my affirmative votes on your proposals. -Jesse >>>>>> Judgement: VALID. Style: Where has all my income gone? Judge and 15 rules to support! Grrr. Still, requiring payment for votes is good (though it raises some questions), and there are various potential pitfalls created for the rest of you. And I guess the charity was chosen with care. But you cant expect a judge in this round to reward theft of his hard earned currency, so I shall give this +1.0 Style. Remark: In fact, this rule was rather closer to invalidity than I first suspected - but I think it is still OK. Those credit ratings are beginning to bite! >>>>>> 130:16 - Ronald Kunne - Wed 16 Feb 16:44:44 - INVALID - (+1.0) >>>>>> Each further rule must give a credit balance of a different FRC member at the time of submission of the rule. If the number given is wrong, then the rule is not invalid, but the author of the rule has committed a fraud and will be punishable according to rule 130:6. The Judge has 1000 Credits. I pay &1000 to Jesse. I pickpocketed &1000 from Christian but the Sherif's Office is still puzzled about it. --Ronald >>>>>> Judgement: Ronald embezzles (by the definition in 130:7) 1000 credits from Christian. He tells us this, which counts as alleging to me. Thus by 130:9 he must tell us of the agency which investigates this. By 130:15, no two agencies investigate the same sort of crime. But in 130:9 Xylen embezzled too, and the FBI investigated that crime. Thus the FBI should also investigate in this rule - they dont and so it is INVALID. Style: I like the idea of declaring credit ratings. That really would put the cat among the pigeons! (Do any pair of players agree on what they currently are, I wonder?). The rest of the rule was fair enough - however Sherif is missing an "f". Since letters are taxed, this is not to be encouraged! So I give this +1.0 Style. >>>>>> 130:17 - Christian Leonhard - Wed 16 Feb 20:58:10 - INVALID - (+1.5) >>>>>> The Fantasy Revenue Service investigates charges of tax evasion. If a player is the first to provide them with conclusive evidence of such a crime in a particular rule (by quoting it) within two days of its posting, the following results apply: 1. the offender must pay a fine equal to double the unpaid tax 2. the informant is rewarded with half this amount 3. the informant is exempted from tax on the informing rule Dear FRS - In 130:15, Jesse bribes the judge "to exempt this rule from the letter tax." Dear Jesse - For shame! Even Jeremy, with his paltry &4735, manages to pay his taxes. Why can't you do the same? -Christian >>>>>> Judgement: If this were valid then, because Jesse posted a rule which included an act of tax evasion (and also because of this rule), he would end up with a large fine. However, by 130:6 we know that none of Jesse's rules cost him more than 2000 credits. The fine would be larger than this, so I find this rule INVALID. Style: Jesse and Christian continue to slug it out over their various schemes to avoid tax. And great fun it is too! I particularly like the hypocrisy of the final paragraph - so shall award this +1.5 Style. >>>>>> 130:18 - Ronald Kunne - Sat 19 Feb 11:15:42 - VALID - (+1.0) >>>>>> Henceforth a rule must make a transfer to another eligible player of at least the amount of the previous transfer that was mentioned in a rule. This amount must be doubled if the author posted a proposal in the 72 hours before the posting of the rule. I pay &1000 to Jesse. --Ronald >>>>>> Judgement: VALID. Style: A relatively plain looking rule, but valid. The requirement should lead to plenty of credits flying in all directions, which could cause a few problems later. The small dig at proposal posters I like, so +1.0 Style. >>>>>> 130:19 - Aron Wall - Mon 21 Feb 21:28:12 - VALID - (+2.0) >>>>>> I, Ronald Kunne, sure am one despicable character! After now, in each of my rules I will always commit at least *two* crimes which have already been completely defined in previous rules. I must warn the FRC about this even though I know the Labor & Libel Labeling committee (LLL) is at this very moment investigating this rule's author for Defamy of Own Character! I transfer &2001 to Jesse as a departing gift. The rest of my credits (after taxes) go to my dear beloved friend Aron Wall. -Ronald Kunne >>>>>> Judgement: VALID. Style: As predicted, the increase in the number of credits floating round the system is beginning to make life interesting! It is a shame my cut is no more :-( I like this rule a lot - the knives are really coming out now! I suspect this is the beginning of an increasingly brutal flurry of rules, which is all to the good. All manner of traps have been set up so far in the round, and I think we are near to several being sprung... +2.0 Style. >>>>>> 130:20 - Jesse Welton - Tue 22 Feb 02:10:42 - VALID - (+1.5) >>>>>> Ronald, I'm sorry for impersonating you and taking your money in 130:19. Just to be fair, I'm transfering &4321 back to you. Unfortunately, I can't give back the money I gave to Jesse because he has some kind of block preventing us from transfering money out of his account. He must have FBl connections. One of us, in his next rule, really must implement a fine on embezzlement. -Aron >>>>> Judgement: VALID. Style: Jesse proves he can be as ruthless as Aron, whose credit rating is slashed by this rule. The idea of anyone being "fair" at this stage in the round raises a smile too. Ronald probably appreciates the unexpected improvement in his credit balance! Plenty to worry the other players in this rule, so +1.5 Style. >>>>>> 130:21 - Aron Wall - Tue 22 Feb 16:12:12 - INVALID - (+1.0) >>>>>> >From now on if a player *can* commit a crime in a rule, they *must*. Bribery! Sliding Scale of Justice ------------------ The rule must meet or exceed the values of both sides of a single row in order to be VALID: Style Bribe required in Rule: +3 0 +2 100 +1 500 0 1000 -1 2000 -2 3000 -3 5000 ------------------ The bribe given in a rule must be a fixed amount which is not dependant on the style judgement for the rule. I transfer 4321 credits to Ronald again (the computer bounced it the first time, sorry Ronald) but require that for all eligible players, their next transfer initiated to satisfy Ronald's rule (130:18) must be to me. I give no bribe for this rule. Aron Wall >>>>>> Judgement: Aron claims that the computer bounced his first attempt to transfer funds to Ronald (in 130:20). Thus I have to conclude that no transfer was made in 130:20, which would contradict the requirement in 130:18. Thus this rule is INVALID. (Warning to Aron: There is also another, more fundamental reason why this rule is invalid...) Style: Aron pins everything on a +3 rating, which I guess is quite stylish. And to link Style awards to bribes seems no bad thing (though I find the correlation between them slightly strange). But the escape from Jesse's credit trap doesnt work, and feels rather like one of those irritating Flash Gordon cliffhangers where the following week you find they just rewrite what you already saw. I like the mandate to commit crimes. Overall, I think +1.0 Style. >>>>>> 130:22 - Aron Wall - Wed 23 Feb 00:53:35 - INVALID - (-2.0) >>>>>> Ronald and Jesse are fined all of their credits to the FBI as a fine for embezzling. This transfer is *not* embezzlement because it is not to my account. No one may take my money except in a rule initiated but not signed by me. Aron Wall >>>>>> Judgement: This rule does not make a transfer to another eligible player, thus contradicting 130:18. That is (one reason why) this rule is INVALID. Style: Boy, Aron sure knows how to displease the judge! No effort seems to be made to be even slightly stylish here; it just looks like a blatant attempt to prevent any one else submitting (or at least making it very, very hard). Where is the good for the round in that? Still, it does have one redeeming feature (it is after all invalid!) and so I shall just award it -2.0 Style. >>>>>> 130:23 - Aron Wall - Wed 23 Feb 01:00:19 - INVALID - (+1.0) >>>>>> All rules have restrictions. Did you know that someone gave 10000 credits to the Fraud Squad today? I give as much money to the Judge as necessary to become the favorite. I then declare my current owner to be my Rival. -Aron Wall >>>>>> Judgement: I can see no restrictions in 130:5. So I think this rule is INVALID. Again, there are other reasons why this rule is invalid (but amusingly, they change with each rule that Aron submits!). Style: This is much better than the last rule. I am not sure that the second line necessarily has much bite, but it certainly has the potential to do so. It is nice to see the rival option being used, and the choice of rival is an interesting one. +1.0 Style. >>>>>> 130:24 - Aron Wall - Wed 23 Feb 15:45:51 - INVALID - (+2.5) >>>>>> If you can't beat 'em, confuse 'em--which means that from now on, by which I do not mean this very instant, the rules (by R.O.'s), which are not considered rules (by custom), shall still have the restrictions in them apply to all rules, unless said restriction would make it impossible to post a rule given the previously given restrictions, nor may a rule which is considered a rule's restrictions apply if they do this, either, unless the rule is such that it contains no more than one sentence, but even then it shall obey a different set of restrictions, to wit, that it contains at least two occurences of BLAH BLAH (never mind this clause), and finally that except for in those rules we were considering earlier which are not usually considered rules there shall be only one of it including this very instant this time--and so now I need to include a Law Enforcement Agency like the FBI, and (let's see here...) a credit transfer is in order, so I do that in the minimal amount to the eligible player that comes first in alphabetical order (last name), and then I do that favorite/rival thing of my last post all over again, and bribe you &1 which avoids character tax, and please oh please if this rule is one of those that is customarily not considered a rule it would be nice if you tell me why it is so--which means all that is left to say is sincerely, Aron Wall. >>>>>> Judgement: Unfortunately, by my reckoning, Aron simply does not have enough credits to be able to pay "the minimal amount" more than &4321 required by 130:20 and so I am afraid this is Aron's fourth consecutive INVALID rule, is that a record?, but since Aron is trying so hard, and asked so nicely, I feel it only fair to inform him, and the rest of you, that unless I am very much mistaken, which is of course possible, but which I doubt, he has, when all is said and done, somewhat less than 3000 credits in the bank at the moment... Style: I like this rule very much. Given Aron's present position, it seems entirely appropriate. I give this +2.5 Style. >>>>>> 130:25 - Aron Wall - Thu 24 Feb 00:49:31 - INVALID - (+1.0) >>>>>> With my private mint I create 20,000 more new credits in my account. This is *not* a transfer as it is not coming from anywhere. Neither is it a payment to my account, because no one is doing any paying--the money just appears (in real life it would seem very odd if one considered the money fresh out of the mint a payment). It should not be considered a payment until a transfer is made from the starting destination. This means it is not embezzling either. Nor does 130:13 stop me, for it says that there *is* exactly 100,000 credits in circulation, not that there *always will be* that amount. I now say that there can never be more than 120,000 credits in circulation. Now I name a a vanilla law enforcement agency like Law Enforcement Agency, do all the credit transactions I tried to do in my last rule attempt, and sign off. P.S. Jesse, I'm so sorry you lost your job... and the worst part of it is that he *agreed* to pay you his bribe income, dishonest creep. What gives him the right to keep back his payments and inform on you? -Aron Wall >>>>>> Judgement: As far as I am aware, the only crimes it has been alleged that Aron has committed are fraud and embezzlement (both in 130:20). So by 130:9, Aron has to name "a law enforcement agency responsible for investigating any crimes allegedly committed by" him. We know that agencies investigate different crimes, so I am prepared to take this to mean that he has to name one (at least) of the agencies responsible for fraud and for embezzlement. We already know by 130:9 and 130:15 who investigates these crimes, and they are not the Law Enforcement Agency. So I am afraid that I must judge this rule INVALID. Style: A nice attempt to solve Aron's cashflow problem. And of course I would have been happy to discover that I had managed to keep hold of my illgotten gains! Normally I would be unhappy about 'rewriting history' in this way - but I think in a round such as this, it is not so unreasonable to claim that members sometimes lie. Though it is a rather delicate issue! My main complaint against the rule is the inclusion of a justification of its various ruses *inside* the rule itself. This does seem rather unstylish, and accounts for this receiving 'merely' +1.0 Style. -- Rule Date: 2000-02-29 11:26:03 GMT From owner-frc@troll.no Tue Feb 29 14:18:09 2000 Received: from svis01 [131.155.70.161] by svfile1.win.tue.nl (8.9.3) for id OAA14950 (ESMTP). Tue, 29 Feb 2000 14:18:08 +0100 (MET) Received: from lupinella.troll.no [195.0.254.19] by svis01.win.tue.nl (8.9.3) for id OAA00881 (ESMTP). Tue, 29 Feb 2000 14:18:06 +0100 (MET) Received: by troll.no id ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 14:17:44 +0100 Sender: owner-frc@troll.no Precedence: list X-Loop: frc From: Jesse Welton Message-Id: <200002291317.IAA31248@campbell.mps.ohio-state.edu> Subject: Re: Round 130 - Final Summary To: frc@troll.no (Fantasy Rules Committee List) Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 08:17:17 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Ronald Kunne" at Feb 29, 2000 12:35:11 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: RO Ronald Kunne wrote: > > Could somebody also post a credit calculation if he has one handy? Sure. > Curiously yours, > Ronald That is curious. Okay, here's what I've got: Rule Signed by True author Date Signing author's eligibility 130:1 Christian Jesse 7 Feb 12:26:43 14 Feb 12:26:43 77 letters Christian 10000 - 770 (tax) + 1750 (eligibility = 7 exactly) - 1000 (pay Jesse) = 9980 Jesse 10000 + 1000 (from Christian) = 11000 130:2 Christian Christian 7 Feb 14:47:06 14 Feb 12:26:43 257 letters Christian 9980 - 0 (no tax, due to bribe) + 1500 (eligibility = 6.x) - 1000 (to Anton) = 10480 Anton (+ 1000) 130:4 Jesse Jesse 8 Feb 14:23:26 14 Feb 12:26:43 137 letters Jesse 11000 - 1370 (tax) + 1250 (eligibility = 5.x) = 10880 130:5 Christian Christian 8 Feb 15:30:27 14 Feb 14:47:06 359 letters Christian 10480 - 3590 (tax) + 1250 (eligibility = 5.x) = 8140* (* I'm assiming "will" means it starts next rule. For simplicity, I assume Christian has arranged the distribution in a non-recursive fashion, so that Anton actually gets 10% of Christian's gross. Later, when Anton must give up his bribe money, recursive embezzlement must be considered; see below. Because Christian's embezzlement funds are not entirely clear, I'm keeping a separate tab of them.) 130:6 Jeremy Jesse 8 Feb 16:15:23 14 Feb 12:26:43 639 letters Jeremy 10000 - 6390 (tax) + 1250 (eligibility = 5.x) * 90% = 4735 Christian (+ 9% of 7640) Anton (+ 1% of 7640) 130:7 Jesse Jesse 8 Feb 19:00:39 15 Feb 16:15:23 143 letters Jesse 10880 - 1430 (tax) + 1500 (eligibility = 6.x) * 90% = 10800 Christian (+ 9% of 2930) Anton (+ 1% of 2930) 130:8 Jesse Jesse 9 Feb 14:34:39 15 Feb 19:00:39 69 letters Jesse 10800 - 690 (tax) + 1500 (eligibility = 6.x) * 90% = 11460 Christian (+ 9% of 2190) Anton (+ 1% of 2190) 130:9 Xylen Xylen 9 Feb 20:26:09 14 Feb 12:26:43 357 letters Xylen 10000 - 3570 (tax) + 1000 (eligibility = 4.x) * 90% = 7330 Christian (+ 9% of 4570) Anton (+ 1% of 4570) 130:10 Christian Christian 9 Feb 22:20:44 15 Feb 15:30:27 621 letters Christian 8140 - 6210 (tax) + 1250 (eligibility = 5.x) * 90% = 3055 Christian (+ 9% of 7460) Anton (+ 1% of 7460) Total Christian has pilfered: 2479 His take (90%): 2231.1 130:13 Ronald Ronald 14 Feb 12:28:51 14 Feb 12:26:43 (+00:05:00) 283 letters Ronald 10000 - 2830 (tax) + 0 (eligibility = 0.x) * 90% = 7170 Christian (+ 9% of 2830) Anton (+ 1% of 2830) 130:15 Jesse Jesse 15 Feb 15:00:09 16 Feb 14:34:39 514 letters Jesse 11460 - 1000 (bribe) + 0 (eligibilty = 0.x) * 90% = 10460 Anton (+ 1000 * 90%) Christian (+ 9% of 1000) Anton (+ 1% of 1000) Total Christian has pilfered: 2479 Anton's take (10%): 247.9 Total bribes taken in: 2147.9 Most of this goes to Executive Payroll Charity. How much? For every X Anton receives in bribes, X/10 is pilfered by Christian when it is transfered to EPC, leaving 9X/10 to EPC. Anton gets (X/10)/10 of this and transfers it to EPC, Christian takes ((X/10)/10)/10, etc. EPC eventually gets: EPCTake = (9/10)(X + X/100 + X/100^2 + ...) = (9/10)(X / (1 - 1/100)) = (9/10)(100X/99) = 10X/11 EPC now has 21479/11. (I'm not entirely sure this is directly at my disposal, so for now I'm keeping it under a separate tab, as with Christian's take. 130:B - John Goodman - Tue 15 Feb 14:09:38 - PASSED - (5/6) - (+1.0) John 10000 - 5000 + 1000 * 90% = 5900 Christian 3055 + 1000 * 90% = 3955 (May not be relevant data anymore) Jesse 10460 + 1000 * 90% = 11360 Aron 10000 + 1000 * 90% = 10900 (About to be reset to 10000) Ronald 7170 + 1000 * 90% = 8070 (I assume Christian continues embezzling despite the fact that he is no longer eligible. There is, to my mind, no suggestion that he does not. At any rate, this gives a nice conservative estimate of the rest of our worths.) 130:C - Aron Wall - Wed 16 Feb 23:39:54 - PASSED - (7/8) - (+2.0) Aron 10000 (reset) 130:18 Ronald Ronald 19 Feb 11:15:42 20 Feb 12:28:51 218 letters Ronald 8070 - 2180 (tax) + 250 (eligibility = 1.x) * 90% - 1000 (to Jesse) = 5115 Jesse 10460 + 1000 (from Ronald) * 90% = 11360 Christian (+ 9% of 3430) Anton (+ 1% of 3430) (10/11 -> EPC) 130:19 Ronald Aron 21 Feb 21:28:12 26 Feb 11:15:42 391 letters Ronald 5115 - 3910 (tax) + 1500 (eligibility = 6.x) * 90% - 2001 (to Jesse) = 554 Jesse 11360 + 2001 * 90% = 13160.9 Ronald 554 - 554 (to Aron) = 0 Aron 10000 + 554 * 90% = 10498.6 Christian (+ 9% of 7965) Anton (+ 1% ot 7965) (10/11 -> EPC) 130:20 Aron Jesse 22 Feb 02:10:42 28 Feb 21:28:12 292 letters Aron 10498.6 - 2920 (tax) + 1500 (eligibility = 6.x) - 4321 (to Ronald) - 2000 (by "admission", his last rule was a fraud) = 2757.6 Ronald 0 + 4321 * 90% = 3888.9 Christian (+ 9% of 10741) Anton (+ 1% of 10741) (10/11 -> EPC) -- Rule Date: 2000-02-29 13:17:44 GMT From owner-frc@troll.no Tue Feb 29 14:34:07 2000 Received: from root@svin12 [131.155.71.135] by svfile1.win.tue.nl (8.9.3) for id OAA15834 (ESMTP). Tue, 29 Feb 2000 14:34:07 +0100 (MET) Received: from lupinella.troll.no [195.0.254.19] by svin12.win.tue.nl (8.9.3) for id OAA22567 (ESMTP). Tue, 29 Feb 2000 14:34:04 +0100 (MET) Received: by troll.no id ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 14:33:42 +0100 Sender: owner-frc@troll.no Precedence: list X-Loop: frc X-Authentication-Warning: mathpc12.city.ac.uk: agc owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 13:34:47 +0000 (GMT) From: Anton Cox To: frc@troll.no Subject: Comments on credits Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO My only comments on Jesse's post are: 1. I am not at all sure in 130:2 that we can deduce that Christian's payment of 1000 credits to the judge is in fact a bribe. So he may have paid tax on this (and I may have got to keep the credits later). 2. In 130:9, Jesse has not recorded Xylen's transfer of 1111 credits from Christian's account into her own. This has certain knock-on effects because of the various skimming procedures in place at the time. I cant remember any other points where I differ from Jesse. Certainly what he has posted formed the basis of my own judgements! Best Wishes, Anton -- Rule Date: 2000-02-29 13:33:42 GMT