End of Round Summary for Round 133 (please archive) The Judge for 134 is Aron Wall. The Wizard for 134 is Aron Wall. Style: Aron +4 Henry + 0 Tich +1 Christian +1 Andy -2 Xylen +1 Jesse +1 John +2 Great Guru +2 Jeremy +1 Rule Info: 133:1 VALID +1 Christian 2000-03-24 19:51:25 GMT 133:2 VALID +3 Aron 2000-03-24 19:55:06 GMT 133:3 UNSUCCESSFUL Andy Stefanski 2000-03-24 19:56:46 GMT 133:4 VALID +1 Xylen 2000-03-24 20:03:19 GMT 133:5 VALID -1 Aron 2000-03-24 20:05:40 GMT 133:6 INVALID +0 Andy 2000-03-24 20:07:52 GMT 133:7 VALID +1 Aron 2000-03-24 20:16:24 GMT 133:8 VALID +0 Christian 2000-03-24 20:20:27 GMT 133:9 VALID +1 Jesse 2000-03-24 20:41:47 GMT 133:10 INVALID +2 John Goodman 2000-03-24 20:42:27 GMT 131:11 INVALID 0 Christian 2000-03-24 20:51:42 GMT 133:12 INVALID -2 Andy 2000-03-24 21:04:28 GMT 133:13 INVALID 0 Aron 2000-03-24 21:09:21 GMT 133:14 INVALID 0 Christian 2000-03-24 21:12:42 GMT 133:15 INVALID +0 Aron 2000-03-26 04:17:13 GMT 133:16 INVALID +2 Great Guru 2000-03-26 05:11:23 GMT 133:17 VALID +1 Tich 2000-03-26 11:41:50 GMT 133:18 INVALID +2 Jeremy 2000-03-27 19:33:03 GMT 133:19 VALID +0 Henry Towsner 2000-03-29 04:18:08 GMT 133:20 VALID +1 Aron 2000-03-29 18:15:36 GMT 133:21 VALID +0 Aron 2000-03-30 01:08:02 GMT 133:22 VALID +0 Aron 2000-04-01 05:58:02 GMT RULES BELOW: +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ cleonhar@adpims.com wrote: > 133:1 > >>>>> > Each rule must introduce exactly one new restriction. > >>>>> > -Christian > > -- > Rule Date: 2000-03-24 19:51:25 GMT Judgement: VALID This rule does have a restriction. Thus it is in keeping with its restriction. Style: +1 Plain and Simple. -- Rule Date: 2000-03-24 22:51:00 GMT ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 133:2 Aron Wall wrote: > >>>>> > Future rules have five words. > >>>>> > > Aron Wall > > -- > Rule Date: 2000-03-24 19:55:06 GMT Judgement: VALID +3 This rule follows the restriction in 133:1, "Each rule must introduce exactly one new restriction." This is the shortest rule I've ever seen Aron post. So, I'll give it three points of style. -Judge Neisler -- Rule Date: 2000-03-26 02:00:52 GMT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 133:3 Nicholson Neisler wrote: > Andy Stefanski wrote: > > > 133:3 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > Each future rule must describe something that keeps a rule from being simple. > > > > A rule is not simple if a restriction takes more than one sentence to explain. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > Andy Stefanski > > Judgement: VALID +1 > > This rule is in accordance with "Each rule must introduce exactly one new > restriction." > > Note: I am interpreting "Future Rules" as rules coming after this one. > > -Judge Neisler > > -- > Rule Date: 2000-03-26 01:49:59 GMT Rejudgement: INVALID I've made a mistake here. Andy - 132:2 Rule Date: 2000-03-24 19:56:46 GMT Aron - 132:2 Rule Date: 2000-03-24 19:55:06 GMT Aron's rule arrived first. I didn't notice until I checked the Troll dates, as in my mailbox, Andy's rule arrived first. In light of Aron's rule (which is coming next) this rule is unsuccessful. I am still awarding +1 style. -Judge Neisler -- Rule Date: 2000-03-26 01:56:21 GMT ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 133:4 Xylen wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > Contractions are henceforth not allowed. > >>>>>>>> > > Xylen > -- > Rule Date: 2000-03-24 20:03:19 GMT Judgement: VALID +1 This rule imposes a restriction and has five words. Therefore valid. -Judge Neisler -- Rule Date: 2000-03-26 02:02:52 GMT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 133:5 Aron Wall wrote: > >>>>> > Implicitly restrict only future rules. > >>>>> > > Aron Wall > > -- > Rule Date: 2000-03-24 20:05:40 GMT Judgement VALID -1 I do not see any reason to rule this invalid. It presents a new restriction (see below), has five words, and no contractions. At the very least, all past rules have been "explicit" in their restrictions. However, what is an "Implict Restriction"? Aron, if you had some meaning in mind, please tell me. Implicit (Page: 736) Im*plic"it (?), a. [L. implicitus, p. p. of implicare to entwine, entangle, attach closely: cf. F. implicite. See Implicate.] 1. Infolded; entangled; complicated; involved. [Obs.] Milton. 2. Tacitly comprised; fairly to be understood, though not expressed in words; implied; as, an implicit contract or agreement. 3. Resting on another; trusting in the word or authority of another, without doubt or reserve; unquestioning; complete; as, implicit confidence; implicit obedience. Implicitly (Page: 736) Im*plic"it*ly (?), adv. 1. In an implicit manner; without reserve; with unreserved confidence. 2. By implication; impliedly; as, to deny the providence of God is implicitly to deny his existence. Bentley. Style Note: This is a sentence fragment. I'm sure that it has a restriction on anything. It can be construed as an imperitive command to players. This rule is not plain and simple. (At least not plain and simple to understand.) -Judge Neisler POSTNOTE: This rule seems to mean: "Implied restrictions effect future rules." -- Rule Date: 2000-03-26 02:18:00 GMT ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 133:6 Andy Stefanski wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > A single letter is not a word. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Andy Stefanski > Rule Date: 2000-03-24 20:07:52 GMT Judgement: INVALID +0 This rule does not follow rule 133:1, "Each rule must introduce exactly one new restriction." It has no restriction and is therefore invalid. -Judge Neisler -- Rule Date: 2000-03-26 02:21:32 GMT ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 133:7 Aron Wall wrote: > >>>>> > Be imperative or be invalid. > >>>>> > > Aron Wall > Rule Date: 2000-03-24 20:16:24 GMT Judgement VALID Style +1 Have at least one restriction. Have five words. Have no contractions. It is therefor VALID. It is interesting to read the definitions of "imperative". I like the idea of the rule. Imperative (Page: 734) Im*per"a*tive (?), a. [L. imperativus, fr. imperare to command; pref. im- in + parare to make ready, prepare: cf. F. impératif. See Perade, and cf. Empire.] 1. Expressive of command; containing positive command; authoritatively or absolutely directive; commanding; authoritative; as, imperative orders. 2. Not to be avoided or evaded; obligatory; binding; compulsory; as, an imperative duty or order. 3. (Gram.) Expressive of commund, entreaty, advice, or exhortation; as, the imperative mood. -Judge Neisler -- Rule Date: 2000-03-26 02:31:06 GMT ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ cleonhar@adpims.com wrote: > 133:8 > >>>>> > Restrict all eligible players equally. > >>>>> > - Christian > -- > Rule Date: 2000-03-24 20:20:27 GMT Introduces exactly on new restriction. Doesn't use contractions. Is imperative. Has five words. Note: There is a couple of interpretations for the imperative here: "Future Rules" or "All Rules". I don't see any validity problems. -Judge Neisler -- Rule Date: 2000-03-26 02:37:20 GMT ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jesse Welton wrote: > 133:9 > >>>>> > Use only grammatically correct sentences. > >>>>> > -Jesse > -- > Rule Date: 2000-03-24 20:41:47 GMT Judgement VALID +1 This rule seems to fit in with the current binding restrictions: Rules must introduce exactly one new restriction each. Rules have five words. Rules do not have contractions. Rules must be imperative. Rules must restrict all eligible players equally. Judging a "grammatically correct sentence" may be somewhat difficult. But the Judge should be able to tell if there are any flagrantly nongramatically correct sentences being submitted. -Schoolmaster Neisler -- Rule Date: 2000-03-26 02:53:39 GMT ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ John M Goodman II wrote: 133:10 >>>>> > Future rules praise the judge. > > >>>>> > -John M. Goodman II > -- > Rule Date: 2000-03-24 20:42:27 GMT Judgment INVALID BY VOTE -Judge Neisler -- Rule Date: 2000-03-26 03:10:18 GMT cleonhar@adpims.com wrote: > 131:11 > >>>>> > Do not use hyphenated words. > >>>>> > -Christian > > -- > Rule Date: 2000-03-24 20:51:42 GMT YOU DIDN'T PRAISE ME!!!!!!!! INVALID BY 131:10 - Then 131:10 was changed by vote. Judgement INVALID +0 -Judge Neisler -- Rule Date: 2000-03-26 03:13:10 GMT ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Andy Stefanski wrote: > 133:12 > > ------- > > Only use previously unused words. > > ------- > Andy Stefanski > -- > Rule Date: 2000-03-24 21:04:28 GMT Still no praise for the Judge. Please don't make me count words. That isn't plain and simple. -Judge Neisler INVALID BY 131:10 - Then 131:10 was changed by vote. -- Rule Date: 2000-03-26 03:14:21 GMT ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++= Aron Wall wrote: > >>>>> > Quintedivisibles: subthematize next four laws. > >>>>> > > Aron Wall > > -- > Rule Date: 2000-03-24 21:09:21 GMT Still still no praise for the judge. And doesn't "quint" mean "five"? -Judge Neisler -- INVALID BY 131:10 - Then 131:10 was changed by vote. Rule Date: 2000-03-26 03:15:42 GMT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++== cleonhar@adpims.com wrote: > 133:14 > >>>>> > Say it in English, please. > >>>>> > -Christian > > -- > Rule Date: 2000-03-24 21:12:42 GMT Still still still no praise for the judge. I get no respect. -Judge Neisler INVALID BY 131:10 - Then 131:10 was changed by vote. -- Rule Date: 2000-03-26 03:16:41 GMT ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 133:15 > >>>>> > Enforce imperative *mood*, simple one! > >>>>> > Aron Wall > -- > Rule Date: 2000-03-26 04:17:13 GMT Judgement: INVALID This restriction has already been covered in 133:7. This rule is invalid by 133:1 which requires, "Each rule must introduce exactly one new restriction." This assumes imperative mood is the only valid interpretation for rule 133:7: " Be imperative or be invalid." I think Christian's comments on Judgement 133:10 cover that. -Judge Neisler -- Rule Date: 2000-03-29 03:36:19 GMT 133:16 Great Guru > >>>>> > If I could describe our judge in five words it would be as fair, honest, > thoughtful, perceptive, and logical. > Future rules will not use the word "five". > <<<<< Great Guru > -- > Rule Date: 2000-03-26 05:11:23 GMT Judgement: INVALID +2 This rule is unfotunately not in imperative mood. Examples Are: Notice how much sharper the picture appears. Call her tomorrow. Take a seat! Style Note: This rule does have 5 words. Bonus Style. -- Rule Date: 2000-03-29 03:41:11 GMT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 133:17 > > -------------------------------------------------- > > Nick knows grammar! Avoid adverbs. > > -------------------------------------------------- > > --TICH > Rule Date: 2000-03-26 11:41:50 GMT Judgement VALID +1 The only question of Validity would be Imperative mood. The second part of the rule is in Imperative mood, but the first part is in Indicative mood. Rule 133:7 states, "Be imperative [future rule] or be invalid." Is this rule in imperative mood? If it is in imperative mood, then it is also in indicative mood. (by symmetry) I don't have a problem with saying that a rule has two moods. Therefore this rule is VALID. Style: Now I have to look out for adverbs. And thanks for the Praise! -Judge Neisler -- Rule Date: 2000-03-29 03:50:55 GMT ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 133:18 "Jeremy D. Selengut" wrote: > ***** > > Our wise Judge recognizes, and we must therefore agree that, in keeping > with the theme, omitted words are not to be imputed when interpreting rules. > > Yuck, these sentences are not simple enough, future rules will not include > phrases enclosed by commas. > > ***** > > Note: the omitted word I refer to, which (almost) everyone has thus far > imputed is "only" as in: "future rules have [only] five words." > > Also, the first sentence does not contain a restriction. If the Judge > agrees with the statement, then its just a statement of fact - a rule can't > restrict how people (even less the Judge) interpret things even if it > wanted to. If the Judge disagrees, the rule will be invalid anyway. The > point of the sentence is just to praise the Judge and point out the > loophole in 133:2. > > -Jeremy Selengut > > -- > Rule Date: 2000-03-27 19:33:03 GMT Judgement: INVALID +2 This rule is not in imperative mood. Therefore it is invalid. Style: Loophole duly noted. -- Rule Date: 2000-03-29 03:54:35 GMT -- Rule Date: 2000-03-29 04:07:42 GMT 133:19 > ---Start--- > Do not use subjunctive mood. > ---End--- > -- > Henry Towsner > -- > Rule Date: 2000-03-29 04:18:08 GMT Judgement VALID +0 This rule seems to hold to the current set of restrictions. Rules must introduce exactly one new restriction each. Rules have five words. Rules do not have contractions. Rules must be in imperative mood. Rules must restrict all eligible players equally. Rules are grammatically correct sentences. Rules cannot contain adverbs. The subjunctive mood can express a doubt or a wish using clauses beginning with if or that and can express a request, demand or proposal in a clause beginning with that. Subjunctive mood Examples: Past Subjunctive: 1.He talks about grammar as if he were an expert. (Expresses doubt or an idea contrary to fact.) 2.I wish that I were a fast runner. (Expresses a wish.) Present Subjunctive: 1.The professor requests that the paper be turned in on time. (Expresses a request.) 2.The rules require that each contestant submit an entry form. (Expresses a demand.) 3.I suggest that the heat be reduced. (Illustrates a proposal.) -Grammarian Neisler -- Rule Date: 2000-03-30 00:24:05 GMT > 133:20 (renumbered) > >>>>> > Exactly five words? Change not. > >>>>> > > Commentary: The intended meaning of the first rule is that once you make > a rule with exactly five words (in the future, of course, due to rule > 5), you have to keep your rules that way. > Aron > > Rule Date: 2000-03-29 18:15:36 GMT I'm not sure what "Change not" means. (I can think of number interpretations.) The best interpretation I havefor the rule is below: If [Future Rules] have exactly five words then [Future Rules] do not change. I don't think I can interpret "Exactly five words? Change not." as "Once a future rule has exactly five words in it, then all future rules must have exactly five words in them." which is what I think you mean in your explinantion. I'll have to think about this. I'd like to hear what anyone else thinks, as we pass into Koan like rules. This rule seems to follow all the restrictions, so in any case: Judgement VALID +1 -Judge Neisler -- Rule Date: 2000-03-30 00:52:45 GMT > 133:21 > >>>>> > Take turns or bow out. > >>>>> > > The Wizard, who hopes that his attempt to circumvent 133:8 will be > smiled upon by the Judge. > -ARON > -- > Rule Date: 2000-03-29 18:17:56 GMT [Future Rules] take turns or [future rules] bow out. I am imagining that "bow out" means they are invalid. But it could mean something else. I am not sure how a rule "takes a turn". The clue is that you are trying to restrict eligible players unequally. I would imagine you mean, "Players must take turns in posting rules or they are invalid." But with the implied subject being "Future Rules", I can't see that. As I can imagine some interpretation of this rule that follows the current restrictions, (which future rules will have to be sure to follow): Judgement VALID +0 -Judge Neisler -- Rule Date: 2000-03-30 01:08:02 GMT -- Rule Date: 2000-04-03 00:25:39 GMT > 133:22 > >>>>> > Be no longer than necessary. > >>>>> > > Aron Wall > > -- > Rule Date: 2000-04-01 05:58:02 GMT Judgement Valid +0 Interpretation: [Future Rules] are to be no longer than necessary. Comment: This is going to be a hard rule to enforce. How is the judge to determine is a rule is longer than necessary? This seems to border on a roundkiller. Comments are welcome. Otherwise, this rule holds to the current restrictions. The only questions would apply to Aron's last 2 rules. 133:20 Exactly five words? Change not. 133:21 Take turns or bow out. Which I still have problem in interpreting. Please keep in mind that these have to be new restrictions (according to 133:1) I can see an interpretation for 133:20 that applies to this rule. (Namely, that once future rules have exactly five words, than all future rules have to have exctly five words. - This would be a new restriction.) I do not see an explicit meaning to 133:21 that applies to this rule. "[Future Rules] take turns or [future rules] bow out." The next rule is going to have to show how it "takes turns" with this rule in order to be valid. -Judge Neisler -- Rule Date: 2000-04-03 00:03:18 GMT -- Rule Date: 2000-04-03 00:29:49 GMT -- Rule Date: 2000-04-05 17:55:30 GMT ====================================================================== Addition by the webpage manager: There were two proposals: 133:A, by Wizard Aron -------133:A--------- Declare the tenth rule INVALID. -------------------- FOR: Wizard Aron, Tich AGAINST: Jeremy ABSTAIN: John, Nick RESULT: Passes 2/3 ====================================================================== 133:B, by Aron ---------133:B----------- The following is a Permanent Regular Ordinance Ammendment Proposal. It shall take effect as soon as the following three conditions are met: 1) The 7 day voting period for this proposal is up. 2) A new round begins. 3) Aron Wall is not the Wizard for that round. The Ammendment itself: Change R.O. 7 from " 7. Style Points. For each fantasy rule posted, the Judge shall award X points, where -3<=X<=3. The Judge may use any criteria e sees fit for such awards. At the end of a Round the Player who has collected the most Style Points will be the Wizard in the next Round. " to " 7. Style Points. For each fantasy rule posted, the Judge shall award X points, where -3<=X<=3. The Judge may use any criteria e sees fit for such awards. At the end of a Round the Player who has collected the most Style Points shall be known and addressed as the Wizard in the next Round. Reference to the Wizard by eir regular name will invalidate a fantasy rule. " ----------133:B------------ FOR: Wizard Aron, Xylen, Henry Townser AGAINST: John, Chuck, Jesse, Andy Stefanski, Anton Cox, Nick, Garth, Great Guru, Ronald RESULT: Fails 3/12