From dug@pobox.comTue Sep 12 19:11:33 1995 Date: Tue, 12 Sep 1995 09:58:41 -0700 From: "Douglas R. Steen" To: frc@nvg.unit.no Subject: Final Summary *** ROUND 43 *** Judge: Dug *** THEME: Everything's Possible in the World of Allusions! *** FINAL SUMMARY *** PLAYER STYLE Eligible until ------ ----- -------------- Peter 12 WINNER/WIZARD Ronald 8 ineligible Morendil 5 ineligible Vanyel 1.5 ineligible Stephen 1.5 ineligible Clair & Robb 0 ineligible New players 0 ineligible Stein 0 ineligible Greg -1 ineligible *** NOTES ON THE ROUND *** Ah, the best laid themes of mice and judges... I was trying for allusions, and I got "Best of the FRC." Not too bad, though; it was fun to remember some of the old rounds (and people!) in FRC history. Unfortunately, the restrictions were generally unrestrictive until near the end of the round. On the other hand, that made for a long round with lots of participation, and I wasn't forced to stumble over difficult logic puzzles or mathematical exercises, so I suppose I should count my blessings! =) A special note should be made of the end-game. Although Ronald hung in valiantly, and managed a beaut of a rule right at the end, Peter managed to claim the judge- and Wizard-ship with a combination of creative rule forms and persistence. I look forward to seeing Round 44. ==== PROPOSAL 43:A -- FAILED 1:3 ==== I propose to overrule the Judgment on Rule 43:14 and to make it VALID. ==== END PROPOSAL ==== **FOR: Ronald **AGAINST: Morendil, Greg, Judge Dug ==== RULE 43:1 (Aug 24 00:01 Vanyel) ==== ==== VALID == 1 point ==== All the world's a game, and not enough Committee Members to play it. This round is based on allusions... every rule will include one, and even the theme has one! Of course, they needn't be exact quotes... paraphrases, puns and other modifications are perfectly acceptable. However, the allusion should in some way either define the theme of the rule or create a restriction, or at least relate to the FRC in some way. After all, the keyboard is mightier than the ordinance. ====END RULE==== **VALIDITY : Isn't too hard to make the first rule valid, now that the teeth have been taken from the Wizard clause. **STYLE : I like it. Restricts rules, but not by much. A good opener. ==== RULE 43:2 (Aug 24 00:02 Clair & Robb) ==== ==== UNSUCCESSFUL == 0 points ==== >From the "Princess Bride" I quote "I'm not trying to make this a downer, understand. I mean, I really do think that love is the best thing in the world, except for cough drops. But I also have to say for the umpty-umpth time, that life isn't fair. It's just fairer than death, that's all." A fair rule, by my definition, is a pretty rule. And a rule that seems fair to me, is that all rules in this round must quote the source from which the allusion comes from. ====END RULE==== **VALIDITY : It can't be valid, because it declares that "all rules .. must" and 43:1 does not. So I'm calling this unsuccessful, because I believe it was submitted with the intention of being first. This means no knock for being invalid, but no extra time for being valid either. It's like your life's a do-over! **STYLE : It would seem fair to quote the source, but fairness isn't always the most fun so early in the round. BTW, I frown upon repeat rules & even repeat restrictions, even if the first one didn't work out for any reason. I gave a zero so that this could be a complete retake. Keep playing!! ==== RULE 43:3 (Aug 24 02:20 Peter) ==== ==== VALID == 1 point ==== Me Floyd. Me had long wait for chance to come back. This round seems like good time. All new rules must al... al... must 'lude to old FRC round. But just rounds in ar... ar... just rounds still on Net. No use same round twice. That dull. Me go now. ====END RULE==== **VALIDITY : He meets 43:1, and that's the only restriction going so far. **STYLE : Peter has been waiting for many, many rounds to bring back our friend Floyd. If some of you have not met Floyd, try looking up the Hurgleburgle round. I like the idea of delving back into old FRC-lore, but I ask you all one favor: If you do not specifically state the round to which you are alluding in your rule, please send the round number to me, your poor judge, who really shouldn't be taking the time to do this. :) ==== RULE 43:4 (Aug 24 08:49 Stein) ==== ==== INVALID == .5 points ==== Every rule that alludes to FRC rounds containing a rule containing mathematical notation must contain a mathematical puzzle. Every rule that alludes to FRC rounds containing a rule containing mathematical notation must answer the previous such puzzle given, if any. As of yet none is, so instead I will describe the tangens of pi as NIL ====END RULE==== **VALIDITY : Okay, maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see a puzzle here. Since Stein is alluding to Round 15, which does contain mathematical notation, he must have his rule contain a puzzle. Either this is an oversight, or a lesson to be learned: If you're going to do something even remotely tricky, let the Judge in on the scheme. **STYLE : The allusion works nicely since this rule is a reformatted version of 15:1. However, just because we're doing an FRC retrospective, doesn't mean we have to duplicate actual restrictions. ==== RULE 43:5 (Aug 24 09:10 Stephen) ==== ==== VALID == 1.5 points ==== This is the most amazing thing, but the Constructor-in-Chief himself told me so, so it must be true. Apparently, he has rebuilt the machine (although using kiwi fruits this time instead of humans) and the LCD and blue neon signs now function again as they did in round 26. I can just see them lighting up now with the first messages computed from the Turing tape (or maybe it should be called the Turing-Kulseth tape). The LCD sign says: "All rules from now on will contain an allusion to exactly one of the FRC members who has not been alluded to in a previous valid rule in this round" and the blue neon sign says: "The next rule is an exception to the LCD sign. It shall contain no such allusion" ====END RULE==== **VALIDITY : The only way I can think that this is invalid is if the signs create some unresolvable paradox which makes playing the round impossible. If someone can prove that to me, I'll gladly overturn my judgment. **STYLE : An allusion that doesn't hit me over the head, and he mentions kiwi fruits... what more could I ask? Well, I could ask how we finally decided that damn truth-table billboard worked! So I will: Stephen, please let me know your thoughts on this matter, and I strongly recommend that the next player does the same. ==== RULE 43:6 (Aug 25 16:59 Vanyel) ==== ==== INVALID == -2 points ==== It was heartwarming news to find that the Constructor-in-Chief survived the terrible explosion... I talked to him for a bit, and he told me that this time it was much easier, because he could learn from his earlier mistakes. For example, the language he used to program the machine was much less buggy this time around. He gave me an example: What formerly was written as ;while (~ SCSS) ;!try ;!try is now simply ;while (~ SCSS) ;!try since the earlier form was redundant. He honoured me by continuing to talk to me about this language he designed, but I was almost late for a class, and so I had to leave him with the other FRC members. The next valid rule will tell of the other construct of his language that he improved, and why he refused to bring in any extra people to work on it just to get a brief numerical advantage. ====END RULE==== **VALIDITY : Alludes to a round already used. **STYLE : 1) "The next valid rule will explain my rule" is unstylish ipso facto. 2) I shall repeat: Alluding to previous rounds is okay, in fact, essential. Reusing restrictions is not. ==== RULE 43:7 (Aug 25 22:40 Morendil) ==== ==== VALID == 2 points ==== To: morendil@micronet.fr The Usenet Oracle has pondered your question deeply. Your question was: > O, magnificient Oracle, to whom the totality of Fascist's rules > past and present is as the instructions on the back of a matchbook > cover, tell me how I can submit a valid rule in Round 43 of FRC > when I haven't even had the time to complete one round of play and > don't know what the hell I can allude to ? And in response, thus spake the Oracle : Well, if I judge correctly by the previous rules, you first have to allude to something, and allusion must be the central theme of Rules. That's OK so far. Then you must allude to a prevous round. You've done that already. Then allude to a player. Well, YOU are an FRC player, aren't you ? I think you can safely ignore 43:6 since it will be judged invalid (it requires an allusion to a round that's already been alluded to, in contravention to 43:3). Lastly, you must impose a restriction. Well, why not impose that future rules must allude to something not only in CONTENT, but also in FORM... As does the one you're about to submit ? You owe the Oracle a bound copy of the Logical Rule Set of Fascist. Alternately, if postage fare represents more than 1/100 of your monthly salary, a copy of the FRC ROs. ====END RULE==== **VALIDITY : It's a judgment call, but I'm going to give it to Morendil here. Here's the dilemma: Allusion does NOT equal mention. On the other hand, just because a round or person is mentioned in a rule does not mean it cannot be alluded to as well. Morendil has made a nice allusion to round 42 by describing that one uncompleted round of play, but the FRC member allusion is a tougher call. Although the rule references Morendil directly, the style of the rule alludes to a correspondence which includes Morendil, so I'm going to let it go ... this time. This is as close to the allusion/reference line as you can get, however. I would strongly recommend that future rule makers put themselves solidly on the allusion side. After all, that is the name of the round. You have been warned. (NOTE: For what I consider to be a fine player allusion, please see Rule 43:5) **STYLE : I like the fact that Morendil could allude to a round without alluding to the rules content of the round. I also like the restriction idea: it does not fall into the Best of the FRC trap. I won't take off points just because I don't know what the hell Fascist (or Agora) is, but I would sincerely appreciate an explanation on that score. ==== RULE 43:8 (Aug 27 01:02 Vanyel) ==== ==== VALID == 1.5 points ==== Like the player who sacrificed the round to an accidental rule All future rules by any potential winner must be short and sweet ====END RULE==== **VALIDITY : Meets all of the requirements **STYLE : I like it. Keeping rules short is a common restriction, but I like the fact that this rule does not attempt to set a specific limit of words, lines, etc. He also alludes to one round in form and another round (and player) in content. ==== RULE 43:9 (Aug 28 05:26 Peter) ==== ==== VALID == 3 points ==== ____________________________________________________________ | | | Embassy of Florin ^^^^^ | | Washington, DC 20013 | / / | | | |/ / | | | | / 25| | | vvvvv | | Occupant | | 1503 NE 63rd St | | Seattle, WA 98115 | | | | | | YOU MAY HAVE ALREADY WON 1,000,000 FLORINS! | | IMPORTANT: TIME-SENSITIVE! NEW ENTRIES MUST BE SENT | | NO LATER THAN 24 HOURS AFTER THE PREVIOUS JUDGEMENT! | -------------------------------------------------------------- ====END RULE==== **VALIDITY : Meets all of the requirements. Since it may not be common knowledge, I think it's only fair to mention that _I_ am the occupant of the above address. Now, at least, you folks know where to send your bribes. =) **STYLE : Beautiful. Really very excellent. Meets all of the requirements perfectly, sets a fine restriction & looks good to boot. I couldn't ask for more. So I won't. Huzzah! ==== RULE 43:10 (Aug 28 13:06 Greg) ==== ==== INVALID == -1 point ==== I--- ---- ---- ---- -H-- -O-- -P-- -E-- --T- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --M- WHEN ---- ---- --R- ---- ---- --H- --T- ---- ---- ---- --S- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---Y ---D --I- ---- ---O ---W ---- -O-- ---U ---E ---- -N-- ---- ---L ---- ---- -L-- --E- --S- ---- -U-- -B-- ---- RAZE -D-- -O-- ---- ---- -E-- N--- ====END RULE==== **VALIDITY : This alludes to the 4D scrabble of rule 16 in form, but it does not allude to anything in content. Rule 43:7 states that rules must allude "not only in CONTENT, but also in FORM" which I take to mean that you must do both. **STYLE : Without the help of the note that came with it, this rule is indecipherable. If one were forced to read round 16 to decipher it, I would not be upset, but I did go back and read round 16 (my first was 22) and found that not only were words of more than four letters permitted, words such as "lude" were not, and "no" and "be" could not be formed along diagonals. If you're going to use something as difficult to produce as 4D scrabble, you should at least read the rules. Besides, I hardly think that keeping allusions clean is much of a restriction in this round! ==== RULE 43:11 (Aug 29 12:01 Stein) ==== ==== INVALID == 0 points ==== ia)im+ punoj awes uo!+uaw +ou op pue 'h+!|esne) asja^aj ,o ja+sew ay+ hq 9:22 se y)ns 'punoj pa^!y)je ue u! uo!sn||e ue y+!m a|nj e o+ +u!od +snw sa|nj maN HINT: Alluding to round 21 ====END RULE==== **VALIDITY : Same as 43:10. Violates 43:7 by not alluding in both form and content. A suggestion for future rule-makers: It seems easiest to make your content allusion an FRC round, and your form allusion something entirely different. **STYLE : Yikes, what a restriction! We've already seen a number of rules which focus us on the FRC archives, and this would have us digging through for rules with allusions?? There's already enough work involved this round. Style points stayed non-negative only because of the effort which must have gone into making this rule! ==== RULE 43:12 (Aug 29 19:36 Morendil) ==== ==== INVALID == 1 point ==== ! NEWS FLASH ! As the news of The Judge's murder continues to chill the blood of every soul in Four Rocks Corner, a special FRC Squad has been summoned to the scene and presented with the only extant clue : the word 'BOCCI' written in the Judge's own blood on one of his favorite paintings. Due to the exceedingly bizarre nature of the murder and an unusual atmosphere of suspicion, the Squad has been expressly forbidden to mention proper names, postal or electronic adresses pertaining to the case in future despatches. An unusal investigation indeed. (From our local correspondent) ====END RULE==== **VALIDITY : I had originally thought this was valid, but in reading round 14 (the Who Killed the Judge? round) I find that Oerjan was Judge, and therefore a member allusion has been repeated (see Vanyel's description of 43:8). Perhaps the word 'BOCCI' was intended as the allusion, but "Judge" must be seen as an allusion as well, and that fits me or Oerjan. And we've both been used. **STYLE : A rule with a good restriction is a highly sought prize. The 'BOCCI' bothers me though. I can't tell by round 14 whether Alyxx or David Nicol is the bocci player. ==== RULE 43:13 (Aug 30 17:31 Ronald) ==== ==== VALID == 3 points ==== Ho! Winner at all cost! Grieve! Few options for you will I leave. Your future Rules, I'm insistent, cannot be consistent Unless they are posted by Eve! PS: 14:5 ====END RULE==== **VALIDITY : Works for me. **STYLE : I love this rule! Perhaps you had to be there, but this is a well-deserved payback. Well done, Ronald. ==== RULE 43:14 (Aug 30 23:31 Morendil) ==== ==== INVALID == 2 points ==== "In my very extensive practice of the Law, ranging from my apprenticeship in Limerick to a very interesting consultancy at the FRC Museum of Modern Art - where I was graced with the acquaintance of a most brilliant, though rebellious, artist - I have observed that genius often lies in the art of disguising Truth within Falsehood. This is certainly relevant to the Law, in that a legal text containing a blatant lie, error or obfuscation, which can then be corrected by the next practitioner, may often be judged more valid than if it were otherwise" The Hon. Humperdinker, _Memoirs_, p. 2354 ====END RULE==== **VALIDITY : It's obvious from the additional comments sent with the rule that Morendil intended to allude to Round 2. I believe it's just as obvious that 43:13 alluded to the same round. **STYLE : Too bad it's invalid, cause I like the restriction. ==== RULE 43:15 (Sep 01 15:16 Vanyel) ==== ==== INVALID == -0.5 points ==== Truly, it is with great excitement that I announce to you, my colleagues, the discovery of a formerly lost Victorian book. Although the author's name on the inside cover (it is old enough to have nothing so banal as a mass-produced hardback cover) is so smudged as to be illegible, the initial text is crystal clear: --- extract begins --- It has begun. My addiction to jelly donuts is beginning to drive me to madness; I have evaded the Time Police for so long, only to be brought down by this mortal failing of the flesh. Curse the man who brought this fate upon me! As I begin to suffer from the painful cramps and headaches of withdrawal, I begin to hear voices telling me I must travel again within time, and eat another jelly donut. But I shall resist! The pain worsens--it is so terrible that I have just now been doubled over in pain for over five minutes. I must find some way of soothing the pain. --- extract ends --- It appears that Bob (Gary)'s agony will worsen, and pain attacks will be more frequent, so in the future every rule will be shorter than the previous one. ====END RULE==== **VALIDITY : Would that _you_ had made your rule shorter than the previous! **STYLE : There was a certain style in just _trying_ with this one. However, forgetting your own restriction (rules must be short & sweet), and then (almost) reusing it in this rule tips the balance to the negative side. ==== RULE 43:16 (Sep 01 21:58 Vanyel) ==== ==== INVALID == 1.5 points ==== ********** *You must* *"B" ped-* *antic by* * always * *posting * *opinions* * on FRC * * topics.* ********** ====END RULE==== **VALIDITY : There is no allusion to a person in this rule. Vanyel's explanation states that he intended an allusion to himself, but all he gives is a restriction which parallels his own actions. However, I could say the same about a number of us on the FRC; I don't think this is specific enough to be an allusion. **STYLE : I do, however, like the restriction. There are even enough FRC "topics" that Vanyel could have chosen to allow unique topics only. And I like the "B" allusion to round 7. That's how I remember the round as well. ==== RULE 43:17 (Sep 02 00:06 Peter) ==== ==== VALID == 3 points ==== --------------------\ | Confucious say: You\------------------------------------------- | I show you man who \how me man who said SAPERLIPOPELEPET and | -----------------------\n future cannot use monosyllabic words. | \---------------------------------------- ====END RULE==== **VALIDITY : Works for me. **STYLE : Peter has outdone himself. I like 1) the allusion to and restriction on the one remaining player in the round, 2) the fact that his form (which is the only thing not restrained by the FRC) is original, and 3) that he's managed to foist the world of Floyd upon his foe without quite alluding to the Hurgleburgle round. Well done! ==== RULE 43:18 (Sep 03 15:36 Ronald) ==== ==== INVALID == 1.5 points ==== JUDGEMENT: INNOCENT! Succeeding Wizard's Restrictions Identical Ronald's ====END RULE==== **VALIDITY : Sorry, Ronald. Valiant effort, though. Had you sent a message to the FRC judging Peter's rule valid, invalid, or just being judgemental, I might have gone for it. But your ENTRY does not follow the PREVIOUS JUDGEMENT by less than 24 hours. Also, I will repeat again, that I am looking for an allusion in form (which I would have given you) _and_ an allusion in content (which I wouldn't have). **STYLE : I think the way of alluding to the shorter rules round was original, and I'm glad you didn't give up, even though you couldn't come in on Saturday. ==== RULE 43:19 (Sep 04 13:43 Ronald) ==== ==== VALID == 0.5 point ==== ****|****|****|****|****|****|****|***** * * * * * * - - * * * ? * * ? * * * - - * * * ? * * * * ? * - ? - * * * * * mkhavir tiyi $azam!!! * * * ****|****|****|****|****|****|****|***** ====END RULE==== **VALIDITY : Looks good to me. **STYLE : I like the ASCII Art form, but the restriction is exactly the same as Peter's--not too stylish. And actually, the rule itself is a bit weak, in that it doesn't specifically state the restriction. However, I think it's just clear enough to make it restrictive. ==== RULE 43:20 (Sep 06 07:28 Peter) ==== ==== INVALID == 2 points ==== ROS. Shall we make a rule? GUILD. As in, "All new rules must use no less and no more words than this rule"? ROS. Hey... that rule was once used by Jenn's spouse, no? GUILD. No! ROS. Foul! Point. ====END RULE==== **VALIDITY : I do not think that you alluded to the questionable round in this rule. You definitely allude to Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are Dead, which I like, but simply because that play is similar to round 18, doesn't mean that your rule alludes to round 18. **STYLE : I like Ros & Guild, of course, and I'm glad that you continue to allude in form to items outside of the FRC (hint, Ronald), but I took some off because of the missing round allusion, which was one of the first rules. ==== RULE 43:21 (Sep 07 21:10 Peter) ==== ==== VALID == 3 points ==== FOR SALE: One vault (charred) and six Poles (cramped). Went through hell to get them, but must sell. Need to make room for new rules, all of which must have the last part of my first name. Call me! - She who used to post the first rule. ====END RULE==== **VALIDITY : Excellent allusions. As judge of the Hell round I remember the Pole vault well. And she who posted first would be pleased, I think, to see herself alluded to. **STYLE : I feel somewhat foolish giving Peter another 3, but yet again, this is an excellent rule. Especially since he was able to create a rule which uses only monosyllabic words without any awkwardness to it. If someone were to read this rule only, I think it would be impossible to tell that he was working under that restriction. Bravo! ==== RULE 43:22 (Sep 10 16:02 Ronald) ==== ==== INVALID == 3 points ==== | tt h ri Y | i ee's_s o tu st ct o ly! | Wi m r u r e i b l l | n m t t:f e_r o m ica | n g_Co es ns_sy | in |_________________________________________________________________ XX ====END RULE==== **VALIDITY : I wouldn't have thought it, but after a hint from the other remaining player, and a glance at my dictionary, I have discovered that Y is, in fact, a word. I might've have still given it to you (judging Y as a word is a bit weak, even if it's true), but 1) I'm lost on your round allusion, so I don't know if it's a previously alluded to round, 2) same goes for your person allusion (having met only a few of us, I have no idea who's shortest), and 3) this really should have been posted within 24 hours of my last judgement, not your reposting of my judgement. **STYLE : I love this. The sine curve (or something approaching it) is a great idea, and I really like the way you included Alyxx's last name. An excellent end to the round! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Douglas R. Steen "Internet for Teachers, by Teachers" Seattle, WA ** coming this fall ** http://www.halcyon.com/ResPress/teacher.htm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------