From owner-frc@troll.no Fri Jul 31 19:09:07 1998 Received: from root@svin07.win.tue.nl [131.155.70.232] by svin04.win.tue.nl (8.8.7) for id TAA28530 (ESMTP). Fri, 31 Jul 1998 19:09:06 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from bahamas.troll.no [195.0.254.69] by svin07.win.tue.nl (8.8.7) for id TAA00786 (ESMTP). Fri, 31 Jul 1998 19:09:04 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from lupinella.troll.no ([195.0.254.19]:42526 "EHLO lupinella.troll.no" ident: "IDENT-NOT-QUERIED") by bahamas.troll.no with ESMTP id <51481-19872>; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 19:08:50 +0200 Received: by troll.no id <80299-295>; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 19:08:36 +0200 Sender: owner-frc@troll.no Precedence: list X-Loop: frc Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 13:07:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199807311707.NAA28338@spock.ai.mit.edu> From: David Fisher To: frc@troll.no Subject: Round 96 final summary Status: OR Round 96 has ended. John Williams will be the wizard-judge for round 97. It was fun judging it, a new experience for me. There were 15 rules, 2 amendments, 1 RO proposal, 7 actions declared rude, 7 actions declared polite, and 3 actions declared to be faux pas. There were two Hottentots, er, Hottenpfeffers, no Frotz or Braum, or any other faction, for that matter. Round 96 Summary Theme: FRC Etiquette Players Style Eligible until (troll.no time) ------------------- ----- ------------------------------ Bill 0.5 Tue, 28 Jul 1998 17:00:14 INELIGIBLE Andre 0.0 Mon, 27 Jul 1998 17:08:17 INELIGIBLE Jason 2.0 Fri, 31 Jul 1998 01:12:29 INELIGIBLE John Williams 2.5 Fri, 31 Jul 1998 21:20:57 WIZARD JUDGE Nick 1.5 Tue, 28 Jul 1998 06:41:47 INELIGIBLE Tich 1.0 Wed, 29 Jul 1998 13:57:00 INELIGIBLE Ed Murphy 1.0 Mon, 27 Jul 1998 17:00:14 INELIGIBLE everyone else 0.0 Tue, 28 Jul 1998 17:00:14 INELIGIBLE Rule By At (troll.no time) Judged Style ----- ------ ------------------------- ------------ ----- 96:1 Bill Tue, 21 Jul 1998 17:01:33 VALID 0.5 96:2 Jason Tue, 21 Jul 1998 17:11:12 UNSUCCESSFUL 1.0 96:2a Tich Wed, 22 Jul 1998 13:57:00 INVALID 0.0 96:3 Andre Tue, 21 Jul 1998 17:08:17 VALID 0.5 96:4 Andre Tue, 21 Jul 1998 17:18:03 INVALID -0.5 96:5 Jason Tue, 21 Jul 1998 17:24:09 INVALID -0.5 96:6 John Tue, 21 Jul 1998 17:45:39 INVALID 0.5 96:7 Nick Tue, 21 Jul 1998 22:05:40 INVALID 1.0 96:8 John Wed, 22 Jul 1998 01:38:36 VALID 1.0 96:9 Tich Wed, 22 Jul 1998 04:20:36 VALID 0.5 96:10 Nick Wed, 22 Jul 1998 06:41:47 VALID 0.5 96:11 Tich Wed, 22 Jul 1998 13:57:00 VALID 0.5 96:12 Nick Thu, 23 Jul 1998 20:06:56 INVALID 0.0 96:13 Jason Fri, 24 Jul 1998 01:12:29 VALID 1.5 96:14 John Fri, 24 Jul 1998 21:20:57 VALID 1.0 96:15 Ed Sun, 26 Jul 1998 19:53:11 INVALID 1.0 96:15a Tich Mon, 27 Jul 1998 13:39:05 INVALID 0.0 Rude: 96:1 To force all rules to be a certain length. 96:3 To be immodest. Posting a day after your rule or at all after your valid rule, unless someone else has posted. 96:8 To post a rudeness without a politeness. 96:9 To mention any rude activity. 96:10 To amend a rule without posting a valid rule. 96:11 To amend one's own rules. 96:13 To imply that rudeness is bad. 96:14 To commit more than 2 faux pas in one rule. Polite: 96:1 To specify something that is rude. 96:3 To give (at least) one rule of FRC etiquette. 96:8 To give a politeness as well as a rudeness. 96:9 To apologise for past rudeness. 96:10 To correct mis-information. 96:11 To name the author and amender when amending a rule. 96:13 To extol the virtues of rudeness. 96:14 To commit at least one faux pas. Faux pas: 96:11 For any Hottenpfeffer to name the faction in more than one rule. 96:13 To mention the number 96 in a complete sentence. 96:14 To imply that one faction is superior to another. Hottenpfeffers: Tich John RO Proposals: Proposal 96:A Andre Tue, 21 Jul 1998 18:00:14 +0200 (MET DST) Amend Rule 6 to read: 6. Judge. The Judge is responsible for interpreting the ordinances and determining the validity of fantasy rules. If a fantasy rule is inconsistent with itself, previously posted valid fantasy rules, or the regular ordinances, then the Judge shall declare that rule invalid or unsuccesful, otherwise e shall declare it valid. Add a Rule 6a, which reads: 6a. A fantasy rule can only be declared unsuccesful if the only rule or rules it is inconsistent with are other fantasy rules for which it is reasonable to assume that the poster of the rule had not seen them before e posted the rule. For: Andre Bill Anton Jason Chuck Ed Against: Nick Rules: 96:1 Bill Tue, 21 Jul 1998 11:01:33 -0400 (EDT) FRC Etiquette All Valid Rules in Round 96 are hereby prohibited from doing anything rude. All Valid Rules must specify something that is rude, and therefore prohibited. Things not expressly prohibited by a valid Round 96 rule are not considered rude unless they conflict with R.O.s. It is rude to force all rules to be a certain length. -bill Judge's Comments: Hmm... a valid starting rule. (They all seem to be that way, don't they?) It's in theme. However, you'll forgive me if it seems a bit lackluster. If the round is filled with people saying what other rules cannot do, it'll quickly turn quite boring, no? Decent, but undistinguished. VALID 0.5 Decent 0.0 Undistinguished ------------------- 0.5 Total 96:2 Jason Tue, 21 Jul 1998 10:11:12 -0500 Each player is a member of one of the three factions: Frotz, Braum, or Hottenpfeffer. The first valid rule a player submits shall indicate to which faction its author belongs. I belong to the Frotz Faction. A valid rule, submitted by a member of a faction, must not commit any faux pas, as defined in the valid rules composed by members of the same faction. To claim that one faction is superior to another is certainly a faux pas. jason Judge's Comment: Now we're getting somewhere. Unfortunately, because of the way this rule is phrased, it would be necessary for Bill to have specified his faction, and he did not. However, Jason could not possibly have known this. UNSUCCESSFUL 1.0 Sets up an interesting framework 0.0 Conflicts with previous rules ------------------------------------ 1.0 Total 96:3 Andre Tue, 21 Jul 1998 17:08:17 +0200 (MET DST) (note I'm taking the time of the first submission) Well, it may be a bit standard, but I couldn't resist the chance. Bad etiquette, I guess. I must say that I will be going on holiday next Saturday, so not making this the winning rule will be more than just good etiquette. FRC Etiquette may sometimes be strict, it is never unreasonable. Because of this, all rules that break it will be invalid this round. Furthermore, each rule shall give one of the rules of FRC Etiquette. Of course the rules of Etiquette are unchangeable. For example, this rule tells about the following rule: Modesty is good. Therefore, you shall not post too much. In particular, one shall not post within one day after one's own rule, or any time after one's own valid rule, unless someone else has posted another rule in between. Andre Judge's Comments: This was posted a good seven minutes after 96:1. Yet, it does not seem to conflict with 96:1 in any way. In fact, it seems surprisingly (or not, maybe not) to be more or less the same as 96:1, only naming a different etiquette infraction. I'm taking the last sentence to mean (a) You may not post less than one day after you last posted, and (b) You may not post at all until someone other than you has posted. Reconsideration: On second thought (and consultation with Andre) (and argument from all over FRC), this rule will be interpreted as Andre originally intended, ie (a) You may not post less than one day after you last posted, unless someone other than you has posted (b) If your last rule was VALID, you may not post at all until someone other than you has posted. VALID 0.5 Decent 0.0 Undistinguished 0.5 Modesty IS good -0.5 Ambiguity in last sentence ------------------------------ 0.5 Total 96:4 Andre Tue, 21 Jul 1998 17:18:03 +0200 (MET DST) It used to be in the Regular Ordinances, but not any more. However, it is still rude to call the Wizard by any other term or name. I would have liked to help you by telling you who the Wizard is, but that would unfortunately have been rude. Andre Judge's Comments: Didn't you just post a rule? INVALID -1.0 Egad! How rude! 0.5 Wow! I think he's talking about... about ME! ------------------------------------------------- -0.5 Total 96:5 Jason Tue, 21 Jul 1998 10:24:09 -0500 All valid rules in Round 96, other than rule 96:4, must be at least three sentences in length. Each valid rule hereafter must somehow circumvent the apparent intent of a previous rule. It is rude to require knowledge of cryptology in order to understand or comply with a rule. jason Judge's Comments: I'm going to disallow this rule, because it makes ineligible people who are not telepaths. INVALID -0.5 This would require telepathy -------------------------------- -0.5 Total 96:6 John Tue, 21 Jul 1998 09:45:39 -0600 (MDT) Every rule shall not fail to say "police" and "yanks" because that is polite, the F R C way. Police consider me an Hottenpfeffer, Yanks. The following message is completely irrelevant: uif gpmmpxjoh nfttbhf jt dpnqmfufmz jssfmfwbou. ~ John Williams Judge's Comments: 'Every rule'? Wouldn't that include preceding rules as well? INVALID 0.0 Minor rule, meaningless restriction 0.5 Silly 0.5 Punny -0.5 Glaring omission (the word 'following,' I think) ---------------------------------------------------- 0.5 Total 96:7 Nick Tue, 21 Jul 1998 22:05:40 +0200 Often it is better to suggest solutions rather than to tell others how to do something. FRC is not too dissimilar. A Member may submit a "suggestion". The submission must be labled as a suggestion. Another Member may nominate the suggestion by replying to the group with the suggestion and the text, "I like this suggestion." The "suggestion" then becomes a rule as if posted by a nominating member. The judge may award style points to the suggestor as well as the nominator. Judge's Comments: I like this rule, I really do. It fits the theme, it is polite, it is pleasant. However, I must call it invalid, because it does not name some rudeness that is therefore illegal, as per 96:1. Sorry. INVALID 0.5 Neat idea 0.5 Quite polite ---------------- 1.0 Total 96:8 John Williams Wed, 22 Jul 1998 01:38:36 +0200 FRCers must show that they are concerned with developing good manners, not just erradicating the bad behaviours. It is rude to tell us not to do something (because it is rude) without also telling us something else which we should do (because it is polite). So a polite rule must include a positive as well as a negative restriction. Judge's Comments: All right. Very polite. Interesting way of ingrating previous rules, as well. VALID 0.5 Decent overall 0.5 Backwards-compatible ------------------------ 1.0 Total 96:9 Tich Wed, 22 Jul 1998 04:20:36 +0200 The mere mention of impropriety is painful to the delicate ears of FRC members. We therefore consider it rude to mention any activity which has been pronounced rude by a previous rule. Contrition, on the other hand, is music to our ears. Any member who has committed an act of rudeness in a rule (even if that rule be judged invalid or unsuccessful) must apolgise. Any subsequent rules submitted by that member will be considered invalid, until such time as he has posted a valid rule containing an apology for his rudeness. Judge's Comments: Hmm. Interesting. VALID 0.5 A decent rule. Welcome to FRC! ----------------------------------- 0.5 Total 96:10 Nick Wed, 22 Jul 1998 06:41:47 +0200 I must apologize for my 96:7. I will do my best to correct it. In any discourse is is polite to correct mis-information. For that I reason I present the follow FRC etiquette rule: Any member may "amend" a rule which has been ruled invalid or unsuccessful. Amending a rule may make it valid. The original rule must be sent along with the amended rule. The posting must clearly state it is an amendment. The amended rule must be similar in spirit to the original rule. The Judge will be the arbiter of this. The amended rule follows all Regular Ordinances the same as normal rules. The amended rule is not a new rule. However, it is rude to amend someone else's rule, without first having posted at least one valid rule. No one likes to be corrected by someone who doesn't know what they are talking about! Judge's Comments: No apology necessary. Submitting an invalid rule is not necessarily rude. I'm going to interpret 96:8 loosely, so that things like "The posting must clearly state it is an amendment" constitutes a positive restriction. But, as far as I can tell from this rule, the amended rule has no authority. "The amended rule is not a new rule"? What does that mean? I'm going to say that, for now, amended rules are meaningless. Reconsideration: On second thought, I'm going to take "Make it valid" to mean, "make it into a valid rule that has legal force." "The amended rule [etc]" I'll take to mean, "the rule is considered to take the number of the original rule." For the time being, I will use subscripts to indicate amended rules. VALID 1.0 Interesting idea -0.5 Ambiguity -------------------- 0.5 Total 96:11 Tich Wed, 22 Jul 1998 13:57:00 +0200 When amending a rule, a player must (for the sake of politeness), ensure that the amended rule names both the original author and the amending player. It is rude to amend one's own rules. I (Tich) am a member of the Hottenpfeffer faction. In view of the fabled modesty of the Hottenpfeffers, it would be a faux pas for any Hottenpfeffer to name the faction in more than one rule. AMMENDMENT TO RULE 96:2 Each player is a member of one of the three factions: Frotz, Braum, or Hottenpfeffer. A rule may indicate to which faction its author belongs. Until such a rule is submitted and judged valid, the player's faction remains unknown. Once a player's faction is known, it would be rude to suggest that the player is a member of any other faction. I belong to the Frotz Faction. A valid rule, submitted by a known member of a faction, must not commit any faux pas, as defined in the valid rules composed by known members of the same faction. To claim that one faction is superior to another is certainly a faux pas. jason (amended by Tich) Each player is a member of one of the three factions: Frotz, Braum, or Hottenpfeffer. The first valid rule a player submits shall indicate to which faction its author belongs. I belong to the Frotz Faction. A valid rule, submitted by a member of a faction, must not commit any faux pas, as defined in the valid rules composed by members of the same faction. To claim that one faction is superior to another is certainly a faux pas. jason Judge's Comments: I like it. However, the amended 96:2a does not seem to contain a positive restriction. It says things that players may do, but not things that they should do. VALID 0.5 Decent overall ------------------ 0.5 Total 96:2a INVALID 0.0 I see no reason to award any style points --------------------------------------------- 0.0 Total 96:12 Nick Thu, 23 Jul 1998 20:06:56 +0200 A Faux-pa is neither polite nor rude. It is polite to describe a faux-pa. It is rude to mention other's faux-pas. Judge's Comments: I don't get it. Is a faux-pa different from a faux pas? Also, the politeness mentioned can not be a firm restriction, since previous rules do not follow it. The only interpretation that would make this valid would be "It would be polite to describe a faux-pa, but it would not be impolite not to." 96:8 says that "A polite rule must contain both a positive as well as a negative restriction." So, I must declare this rule INVALID, and impolite as well. INVALID 0.5 Short and sweet -0.5 Rude, rude, rude -------------------- 0.0 Total 96:13 Jason Fri, 24 Jul 1998 01:12:29 +0200 I must apologize for 96:5. I can only say that I must have been quite out of my mind, although I know that's not much of an excuse. To mention the number 96 in a complete sentence is a faux-pa. Oops! There I go again. In any case, it is extremely rude to imply that rudeness is unstylish, immoral, or deleterious in its effects. All rules henceforth shall politely extol the virtues of rudeness, which is after all the fundamental driving force behind such historic events as the Boston Tea Party and indeed the entire American Revolution; the binding principle between the works of Geoffrey Chaucer, Niccolo Machiavelli, and Quentin Tarantino; and the primary requirement for the existence of a society in which anything is ever to get done. Judge's Comments: Very good! It creates a structure for future rules, as well as being quite polite itself. A masterpiece of etiquette, indeed. Although, the apology was not necessary, again. 96:5 was invalid, but it was not rude. VALID 0.5 Quite polite 0.5 Well-written 0.5 Creates structure for future rules -------------------------------------- 1.5 Total 96:14 John Fri, 24 Jul 1998 21:20:57 It never hurts to be too apologetic, so I will apologize for any impropriety I may have committed in rule 96:8. I would refer any inquiries as to my faction to reexamine that rule. FRCers like to live on the edge, so hereafter all rules shall commit at least one faux pas. While faux pas are not impolite in-and-of-themselves, committing more than 2 in a single rule would be rude. I would like to reaffirm that it is a faux pas to imply that any one faction is in any way superior to another. Without Rudeness, we would not be able to walk that thin line between politeness and rudeness from which we obtain our greatest literary devices, such as innuendo, parady, burlesque, sarcasm, and the wit of Alexander Pope. Judge's comments: Good, good. I'll come out and say right now, though, that the first paragraph went right past me. Perhaps you meant 96:6? I'm also going to say that a faux-pa is the same thing as a faux pas. VALID 0.5 Well-written 0.5 Polite (getting more difficult to follow that one) 0.5 Finally incorporates faux-pas successfully. ------------------------------------------------------ 1.5 Total 96:15 Ed Murphy Sun, 26 Jul 1998 19:53:11 Future rules ought to begin with a nice greeting. For instance: Hello, Tich. How are your fellow Hottentots? Er, Hottenpfeffers, sorry. Now there's a faux pas - misspelling a faction. My apologies. It won't happen again. In fact, just to be sure: it would be rude to commit a faux pas that has already been committed in a previous rule. Not that there's anything *wrong* with rudeness, after all it does give us something to do. Judge's Comments: A generally decent rule, with one failing: this rule makes all repeat faux pas rude, which presumably includes previous faux pas. Interestingly enough, the main effect of this rule (were it VALID) is to require that future rules name a faux pas and use it. A way around this is to name several faux pas, and then use not more than two, which would allow future rule-posters to use your faux pas in a leisurely fashion. INVALID 0.5 Well-written 0.5 Successfully juggles politeness, rudeness, and faux pas-ness -0.5 Inconsistant with previous rules 0.5 Polite nonetheless ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1.0 Total 96:15a Tich Mon, 27 Jul 1998 13:39:05 Future rules ought to begin with a nice greeting. For instance: Hello, Tich. How are your fellow Hottentots? Er, Hottenpfeffers, sorry. Now there's a faux pas - misspelling a faction. My apologies. It won't happen again. In fact, just to be sure: it would be rude to commit a faux pas that has already been committed in a previous rule. Not that there's anything *wrong* with rudeness, after all it does give us something to do. Future rules ought to begin with a nice greeting. For instance: Hello, Tich. How are your fellow Hottentots? Er, Hottenpfeffers, sorry. Now there's a faux pas - misspelling a faction. My apologies. It won't happen again. In fact, just to be sure: in future, it will be considered rude to commit a faux pas that has already been committed in a previous rule. Not that there's anything *wrong* with rudeness, after all it does give us something to do. Judge's Comments: All right. This fixes up the one problem of 96:15. This amendment will not affect style, eligiblity or anything else. However, Tich was rude while making this amendment -- nowhere did he mention Ed Murphy! As far as I can tell, that does not invalidate the amendment, but it does require a profuse apology from Tich by his next rule. Reconsideration: You know, it occurs to me now, how can the amendment be VALID if it is rude, after all, 96:11 says, "When amending a rule, a player must (for the sake of politeness), ensure that the amended rule names both the original author and the amending player." Therefore, this amendment is INVALID. INVALID 0.0 No style points can be given -------------------------------- 0.0 Total