Summary #5 of Round 135: "Self-Modifying Code" _Player_Standings_ Ed Murphy 2000-04-30 22:56:45 GMT +1.0 * Jesse Welton 2000-04-27 16:14:51 GMT +3.5 Ronald Kunne 2000-04-27 10:08:12 GMT +3.5 Nicholson Neisler 2000-04-27 00:47:03 GMT +0.5 Aron Wall 2000-04-26 16:14:40 GMT +6.5 ^ Richard Wein 2000-04-26 12:09:23 GMT +1.5 Jeremy Selengut 2000-04-25 14:40:31 GMT +1.5 Great Guru 2000-04-24 20:51:11 GMT +1.5 Andre Engels 2000-04-24 20:14:25 GMT +1.5 2000-04-24 20:14:25 GMT * next round's judge ^ next round's wizard _Proposal_Summary_ 135:A (Nicholson Neisler, 2000-04-16 22:59:09 GMT) PASSED 6/2/0 135:B (Richard Wein, 2000-04-16 23:49:20 GMT) FAILED 4/3/0 135:C (Nicholson Neisler, 2000-04-18 06:53:57 GMT) PASSED 2/1/0 _Rule_Summary_ *[ i] 135:1 (Aron Wall, 2000-04-17 20:14:25 GMT) VALID +0.5 *[ ii] 135:2 (Jesse Welton, 2000-04-17 20:35:53 GMT) VALID +1.0 *[ iii] 135:3 (Great Guru, 2000-04-17 20:51:11 GMT) VALID +1.5 [ ] 135:4 (Jeremy Selengut, 2000-04-17 21:03:35 GMT) INVALID +0.5 [ ] 135:5 (Aron Wall, 2000-04-17 21:15:33 GMT) INVALID +1.5 *[ iv] 135:6 (Jeremy Selengut, 2000-04-18 14:40:31 GMT) VALID +1 *[ v] 135:7 (Ronald Kunne, 2000-04-19 09:59:19 GMT) VALID +1 [ ] 135:8 (Andre Engels, 2000-04-19 11:37:16 GMT) UNSUCCESSFUL +1.5 *[ vi] 135:9 (Richard Wein, 2000-04-19 12:09:23 GMT) VALID +1.5 *[ vii] 135:10 (Jesse Welton, 2000-04-19 15:22:15 GMT) VALID +1 *[viii] 135:11 (Nicholson Neisler, 2000-04-20 00:47:03 GMT) VALID +0.5 *[ ix] 135:12 (Aron Wall, 2000-04-20 02:33:35 GMT) VALID +2 *[ x] 135:13 (Jesse Welton, 2000-04-20 16:14:51 GMT) VALID +1.5 o[ xi] 135:14 (Ronald Kunne, 2000-04-21 10:08:12 GMT) VALID +1.5 *[ xii] 135:15 (Aron Wall, 2000-04-21 16:14:40 GMT) VALID +1 *[xiii] 135:16 (Ed Murphy, 2000-04-23 22:56:45 GMT) VALID +1 *[ ] 135:17 (Aron Wall, 2000-04-24 15:45:29 GMT) INVALID +1 *[ ] 135:18 (Aron Wall, 2000-04-26 15:26:36 GMT) INVALID +0.5 *[ ] 135:19 (Ronald Kunne, 2000-04-27 16:49:33 GMT) INVALID +1 * active o inactive _Proposals_and_Votes_ 135:A (Nicholson Neisler, 2000-04-16 22:59:09 GMT) PASSED 6/2/0 >----------135:A------------ >For the length of round 135, rules posted will have the property of >being either active or inactive. A rule's Activity Property may >change, as determined in rules posted during round 135. An inactive >rule shall have the same effect on gameplay as invalid and unsuccesful >rules, except that it may have the possibility of becoming active. The >property of Activity is seperate from that of Validity. > >Unless otherwise stated, a rule when posted is active. --------------------------- For: Richard Wein, Garth Rose, Nicholson Neisler, Jesse Welton, Ronald Kunne, Jeremy Selengut Against: Aron Wall, Andre Engels Abstentions: 135:B (Richard Wein, 2000-04-16 23:49:20 GMT) FAILED 4/3/0 >(Only applicable if 135:A passes.) > >If activation of an inactive rule results in an inconsistency in the active >rule set, then one or more rules (starting with the lowest numbered active >rule and increasing) are immediately and automatically deactivated, until >the remaining active rule set is consistent. For: Richard Wein, Garth Rose, Jesse Welton, Jeremy Selengut Against: Aron Wall, Ronald Kunne, Nicholson Neisler Abstentions: 135:C (Nicholson Neisler, 2000-04-18 06:53:57 GMT) PASSED 2/1/0 >--------------- >If Rule X tries to activate Rule Y either directly or indirectly, and >Rule Y is inconsistant with the current active rule set, than Rule X >shall be judged invalid. >----------------- For: Nicholson Neisler, Aron Wall Against: Jeremy Selengut Abstentions: _Rules_and_Judgements_ 135:1 [i] (Aron Wall, 2000-04-17 20:14:25 GMT) VALID +0.5 >>>>>> >The next rule shall contain the exact text of this one except for the >possible addition, deletion, or modification of three of the words in >this rule. Although the words may not be rearranged they may be >repunctuated. The resulting rule must be grammatically correct and >describe how the next rule must be formed. >>>>>> Validity: The reference to "the possible addition...of three of the words in this rule" is awkward, but the meaning is clear enough. VALID Style: Solidly on-topic, but far too restrictive for a first rule. A minor knock for the awkward phrasing mentioned above, as well. STYLE +0. REVISED: Upon reflection (and examining subsequent submissions), I'm reducing the 'restrictiveness' penalty I imposed; it doesn't seem to have been as limiting as I had feared. STYLE +0.5. 135:2 [ii] (Jesse Welton, 2000-04-17 20:35:53 GMT) VALID +1 >>>>>> >The next rule shall contain the exact text of this one except for the >possible addition, deletion, or modification of three of the words in >this. Inactivate the previous rule. Although the words may not be >rearranged they may be repunctuated. The resulting rule must be >grammatically correct and describe how the next rule must be formed. >>>>>> Validity: Sigh. What to do about the fact that 135:A hasn't passed yet? If I render this rule invalid, then I must do so for the next three (which have already been submitted) as well.. Better, I think, to assume that the proposal will pass (as it seems to be doing) and cross my fingers. VALID. REVISED: Oops. See below. Style: Nice use of 135:A, but not so nice engineering of a situation ripe with potential to unravel the ruleset should the proposal fail. STYLE +0. REVISED: Having been reminded that 135:A's failing would merely render references to inactivation undetermined, rather than invalid, I feel obliged to remove this style penalty. STYLE +1. 135:3 [iii] (Great Guru, 2000-04-17 20:51:11 GMT) VALID +1.5 >}}}}} >The next rule shall contain the exact text of this one except for the >possible addition, deletion, or modification of seven of the words in this >one. Inactivate the previous rule. Although the words may not be >rearranged they may be repunctuated. The resulting rule must be >grammatically correct and describe how the sixth rule must be formed. >}}}}} Validity: VALID. Style: Very nice. "Seven" gives people a bit more elbow room to flex their creativity in future rules. "Sixth" provides an opportunity for the fifth rule to break out of the current 'thread of execution', possibly braiding in a second? STYLE +1.5. 135:4 (Jeremy Selengut, 2000-04-17 21:03:35 GMT) INVALID +0.5 >***** >The next and sixth rule shall not contain the exact text of this one. For >the addition, deletion, or modification of seven of the words in this one >will inactivate the previous rule. Although the words may not be >rearranged they may be repunctuated. The resulting rule must be >grammatically correct and describe how the next rule must be formed. >***** Validity: The second sentence is not grammatically correct (as required by 135:3); either the word "for" should be omitted, or the preceding period should be replaced with a comma. INVALID. Style: Inventive, but has a marked air of throwing babies out with bathwater. The only restrictions that appear to have any force are that neither of the next two rules may be verbatim reposts of this one (which hardly seems like much of a restriction), and that they must describe the formation of the following rule (which did not originate with this rule). STYLE +0.5. 135:5 (Aron Wall, 2000-04-17 21:15:33 GMT) INVALID +1.5 >>>>>> >The next and sixth rule shall contain the full text of this one. For >the deletion or modification of any of the words from this rule will >invalidate that rule. The words may, however, be rearranged and >repunctuated. The resulting rule must be grammatically correct and must >describe how the next rule must describe how the following rule must be >formed. >>>>>>> Validity: Grammatically incorrect in the same way as 135:4. INVALID. Style: The bit about rearranging rather than modifying is quite original, and I quite like the deft and subtle trap layed herein as well. STYLE +1.5. 135:6 [iv] (Jeremy Selengut, 2000-04-18 14:40:31 GMT) VALID +1 >***** >The sixth rule shall contain the exact text of this one except for the >possible addition, deletion, or modification of seven of the words in this >one. In the next rule the words may be rearranged. They may be >repunctuated. >The resulting rules must be grammatically correct and describe how the next >rule must be formed. >***** Validity: VALID. Style: STYLE +1. 135:7 [v] (Ronald Kunne, 2000-04-19 09:59:19 GMT) VALID +1 >>>>>>>>>> The next valid rule shall contain the exact text of an earlier valid rule except for replacement of at least five words containing the letter 'x'. The resulting rule must be grammatically correct and describe how the next rule must be formed. >>>>>>>>>> Validity: If this rule is valid then "the sixth rule" mentioned in 135:6 cannot plausibly have referred to 135:6 itself (since this rule is not a rearrangement of that one), and must therefor refer to the next valid rule after this one (i.e., the sixth valid rule). This seems fine to me. VALID. Style: By feeding back into the next valid rule (which 135:6 already restricts), an opportunity has been squandered to establish a second, independent "thread of execution," but I won't penalize for this. STYLE +1. 135:8 (Andre Engels, 2000-04-19 11:37:16 GMT) UNSUCCESSFUL +1.5 >*** > >The next rule is not described as the last in words, but may have extra. > >*** Validity: Andre had clearly not received Ronald's 135:7 when he submitted this. UNSUCCESSFUL. Style: Nicely done. STYLE +1.5. 135:9 [vi] (Richard Wein, 2000-04-19 12:09:23 GMT) VALID +1.5 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >The following rule shall contain the precise contents of this one except for >the possible addition, deletion, or modification of seven of the words in >this one. In the hundredth rule the words may be rearranged. They may be >repunctuated. The resulting rules must be grammatically correct and describe >how the following rule must be formed. The next rule must not add anything >to the beginning or end of the contents of this one. ><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Validity: Successfully runs the gauntlet of 135:6 and 135:7. VALID. Style: An admirable job meeting the potentially oppressive constraints upon this rule while at the same time adding substantive content. STYLE +1.5. 135:10 [vii] (Jesse Welton, 2000-04-19 15:22:15 GMT) VALID +1 >>>>>> >The following rule shall contain only the precise contents of this one >except for the possible addition, deletion, or modification of seven >of the words in this, the seventh rule. The words may not be >rearranged. They may be repunctuated. The resulting rules must be >grammatically correct and describe how the following rule must be >formed. The next rule must add something to the beginning or end >of the contents of this one. >>>>>> Validity: VALID. Style: STYLE +1. 135:11 [viii] (Nicholson Neisler, 2000-04-20 00:47:03 GMT) VALID +0.5 >>>>>>> >The following rule shall contain only the precise contents of this one >except for the possible addition, deletion, or modification of seven of >the words. In the next rule, the words may not be rearranged but they >may be repunctuated. The resulting rule must be grammatically correct >and describe how the following rule must be formed. The next rule must >add something to the beginning or end >of the contents of this one. Inactivate previous rules. >>>>>>> Validity: VALID. Style: Identical restrictions to 135:10, apart from a blanket inactivation which doesn't seem to have much effect (given the paucity of restrictions affecting rules beyond the "next"). STYLE +0.5. 135:12 [ix] (Aron Wall, 2000-04-20 02:33:35 GMT) VALID +2 >>>>>> >Substitute opposite meanings for bracketed entities in: "The following >rule shall contain only the precise contents of this one except for the >possible addition, [deletion], or modification of seven of the words. In >the next rule, the words may [not be] rearranged but they may [be] >repunctuated. The resulting rule must [be] grammatically [correct] and >describe how the [following] rule must [be] formed. The next rule must >add [something] to the [beginning] or [end] of the contents of this one. >[Inactivate] previous rules." >>>>>> Validity: It's a bit ambiguous whether the instructions given here are those for decoding the present rule or rather those which the next must follow. An argument can be made for either position, I think. This rule is valid under either interpretation, of course. VALID. Style: Creative exploitation of punctuation, and the intriguing ambiguity mentioned above must surely be worth something. STYLE +2. 135:13 [x] (Jesse Welton, 2000-04-20 16:14:51 GMT) VALID +1.5 >>>>>> >Substitute opposite meanings for bracketed entities in: "The >[following] rule shall not contain only the precise contents of this >one except for the possible addition, [deletion], or modification of >seven of the words. The next shall. In the next rule, the words may >[be] rearranged but they may [be] repunctuated. The resulting rules >must [be] grammatically [correct] and describe how the following rule >must [not be] formed. The next rule must add [something] to the >[beginning] or [end] of the contents of this one. [Inactivate] the >previous rule." >>>>>> Validity: VALID. Style: Branches out from the pack of "next rule" restrictions by restricting the previous rule as well. STYLE +1.5. 135:14 [xi] (Ronald Kunne, 2000-04-21 10:08:12 GMT) VALID +1.5 >>>>>>> >Substitute opposite meanings for bracketed entities in: >"The [following] rule shall not contain only the precise contents of this >one except for the possible addition, [deletion], or modification of >seven of the words. The next shall. In the next prime-numbered rule, >the words must [be] rearranged but they must [be] repunctuated. The >resulting rules must [be] grammatically [correct] and describe how the >following rule must [not be] formed. >The next even-numbered rule must add [something] to the >[beginning] or [end] of the contents of this one. >[Inactivate] the previous rule." >>>>>>> Validity: VALID. Style: At last, we begin to have a situation where the activation or inactivation of rules is likely to matter later. STYLE +1.5. 135:15 [xii] (Aron Wall, 2000-04-21 16:14:40 GMT) VALID +1 >>>>>> >Substitute opposite meanings for bracketed entities in: >"The [following] rule shall not contain only the precise contents of >this one except for the possible addition, [deletion], or modification >of seven of the words. The next shall. Actives restricting all actives >penalty: inactivation! In the next prime-numbered rule, the words must >[be] rearranged but they must [be] repunctuated. The resulting rules >must [be] grammatically [correct] and describe how the following rule >must [not be] formed. >The next even-numbered rule must add [something] to the >[beginning] or [end] of the contents of this one. [Activate] the >previous rule." >>>>>> Validity: VALID. Style: New restriction is moderately interesting, but inactivation of one's rule is (so far) pretty innocuous for a "penalty." STYLE +1. 135:16 [xiii] (Ed Murphy, 2000-04-23 22:56:45 GMT) VALID +1 >----- begin 135:16 [xiii] ----- > >Substitute opposite meanings for bracketed entities in: >"The [following] rule shall not contain only the precise contents of >this one except for the possible addition, [deletion], or modification >of seven of the words. The next shall. Actives restricting all or no actives >penalty: inactivation! In the next square-numbered rule, the words must >[not be] rearranged but they must [be] repunctuated. The resulting rules >must [be] grammatically [correct] and describe how the following rule >must [not be] formed. >The next even-numbered rule must add [nothing] to the >[beginning] or [end] of the contents of this rule. [Inactivate] the >previous rule." > >------ end 135:16 [xiii] ------ Validity: VALID. Style: STYLE +1. 135:17 (Aron Wall, 2000-04-24 15:45:29 GMT) INVALID +1 >>>>>>> >Ignoring "Substitute opposite meanings for bracketed entities in: `The >[following] rule shall not contain only the precise contents of >this one except for the possible addition, [deletion], or modification >of seven of the words. The next shall. Actives restricting all or no >actives penalty: inactivation! In the next square-numbered rule, the >words must [not be] rearranged but they must [be] repunctuated. The >resulting rules must [be] grammatically [correct] and describe how the >following rule must [not be] formed. The next even-numbered rule must >add [nothing] to the [beginning] or [end] of the contents of this rule. >[Inactivate] the previous rule,' " expand the acronym >NRMORTWIWRMRORNETAD. > >"NRMORTWIWRMRORNETAD" isn't a word. >>>>>> Validity: 135:16 indicates that "the next shall...contain only the precise contents of this one except for the possible addition, creation, or modification of seven of the words," but this rule contains the acronym "NRMORTWIWRMRORNETAD" as well. INVALID. Style: Nice try. STYLE +1. 135:18 (Aron Wall, 2000-04-26 15:26:36 GMT) INVALID +0.5 >>>>>> >Change the following into a self-reconstructing rule: >"The [following] rule shall not contain only the precise contents of >this one except for the possible addition, [deletion], or modification >of seven of the words. The next shall. Actives restricting all or no >actives penalty: inactivation! In the next square-numbered rule, the >words must [not be] rearranged but they must [be] repunctuated. The >resulting rules must [be] grammatically [correct] and describe how the >following rule must [not be] formed. The next even-numbered rule must >add [nothing] to the [beginning] or [end] of the contents of this rule. >[Inactivate] the previous rule." >>>>>> Validity: 135:16 requires that this rule "contain only the precise contents of [that] one except for the possible addition, creation, or modification of seven of the words." This would appear to be fulfilled by modifying the first seven words from "substitute opposite meanings for bracketed entities in" to "change the following into a self-reconstructing rule" (assuming that we accept "self-reconstructing" as a single word). But 135:16 also requires that this rule "add something to the end or beginning of the contents of this rule." Clearly, nothing is added at the end. It is my opinion that the modification of the first seven words of 135:16 does not constitute adding anything to the beginning, either. INVALID. Style: The meaning of "change the following into a self-reconstructing rule" is not at all clear to me. STYLE +0.5. 135:19 (Ronald Kunne, 2000-04-27 16:49:33 GMT) INVALID +1 >>>>>> >Substitute identical meanings for bracketed entities in: >"The [following] rule shall not contain only the precise contents of >this one except for the possible addition, [deletion], or modification >of five of the sentences. The sixteenth shall. >Actives restricting all or no actives penalty: inactivation! >In the next square-numbered rule, the sentences must >[not be] rearranged but they must [be] repunctuated. The nine sentences >must [be] grammatically [correct] and describe how the following rule >must [not be] formed. >[Inactivate] the previous rule. >The next even-numbered rule must add [nothing] to the >[beginning] or [end] of the contents of this rule." >>>>>>> Validity: Despite Ronald's express intention that it do so, I cannot conclude that rearranging the existing contents of 135:16, even if it involves moving the middle of those contents to the end, constitutes "add[ing] something to the end...*of the contents* of [135:16].". The line which has been placed at the end is still part of the contents of said rule, so anything intended to come after those contents would have to follow that line. Note that my interpretation would have been much different had the requirement been merely that something be added to the end of the rule. INVALID. Style: STYLE +1. -- Rule Date: 2000-04-28 14:32:25 GMT ====================================================================== Note from the webpage-manager regarding Rule 135:8: With the Rule, I added the following text: Note: The previous rule said: "In the next rule the words may be rearranged. They may be repunctuated. The resulting rules must be grammatically correct and describe how the next rule must be formed." In other words, by repunctuating and rearranging words in this rule, one gets a gramatically correct rule that describes how the next must be formed. I'll send the judge privately my interpretation. The interpretation I privately sent to the Judge was: The next rule is as described in the last, but may not have extra words. Andre