From morendil@micronet.frMon Oct 16 18:48:27 1995 Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 18:09:15 +0000 From: Laurent Bossavit To: frc@nvg.unit.no Subject: Final summary of Round 45 --[Final summary of Round 45]-- All times given here are GMT+1. Round started on Mon, 2 Oct, 09:00:00. Round ended on Mon, 17 Oct, 16:11:56 Theme : Altruism Wizard : Ronald Judge : Morendil Eligibility status : Name Until SPs Jeremy winner 5.5 New CoWizard Dug ineligible 5.5 New CoWizard Vanyel ineligible -0.5 Ronald ineligible -3.5 Stein ineligible -8.5 Proposals of Round 45: -[Proposal 45:A, voting ended Thu, Oct 5 13:45:31]- That 45:2 be declared INVALID. PRO : Peter, Jeremy, Bruce, Dug, Stein CON : Morendil PASSED -[Proposal 45:B, voting ended Sat, Oct 7 03:36:29]- That 45:4 be declared INVALID. PRO : Peter, Stein, Stephen CON : Dug, Jeremy, Oerjan FAILED -[Proposal 45:C, voided after 45:8 became INVALID after 45:17]- That 45:8 be declared INVALID -[Proposal 45:D, voting ended Fri, Oct 13 21:03:03]- That 45:18 be declared INVALID NO VOTES -[End proposals]- Fantasy Rules of round 45 : -[Rule 45:1 by Ronald (Mon, 02 Oct 95 11:07:21) INVALIDATED -1.5 SP]- Altruism: a Rule is invalid, unless followed by another valid Rule *or* a unless a Proposal is adopted to declare it valid -[Comments]- Validity : note that I adopt the 'C-VALID' notation, for 'CONDITIONALLY VALID', rather than 'UNDECIDED' as suggested by Ronald. This rule is not undecided; it's valid, except that its validity may be undermined by a future rule. Style : short... but that's all that can be said for it.The 'valid by proposal' proviso is unnecessary, since the ROs dictate this anyhow; I don't quite see how this Rule can be said to be 'altruistic', in itself; and inflicting upon me the headaches of judging another 'paradoxical' round like 12 is decidedly un-altruistic in spirit. -[Rule 45:2 by Stein (Mon, 2 Oct 1995 12:46:18) INVALID by 45:A 1.5 SP]- Nice: A rule is nice if and only if it at any time applies to no more than half of the rules in the round. All even-numbered rules are nice! -[Comments]- Validity : much as I would have liked an invalid rule at this point, thus giving me an out on conditionals, this rule is C-VALID. Additional notes on validity after proposal 45:A : I disagree with the argument that this rule applies to all rules in the round because it introduces a 'global' definition. The definition, as the rule does, applies only to even-numbered rules... by definition, so to speak. Style : short, adheres to the theme rather... nicely. :) -|Rule 45:3 by Vanyel (Mon, 2 Oct 1995 15:22:49) INVALID -0.5 SP]- This rule is true, and this rule is false. Puzzle it out if you will. I do this for purpose completely apparent, the rest of the round to kill. -[Rule End]- -[Comments]- Validity : well, this rule can be judged to be trivially INVALID (inconsistent with itself in the purest of ways), though I've known past rules to be judged VALID that were even less consistent. Still, since it was so obviously meant to be INVALID, I'm glad to oblige. Style : meaning to invalidate the two previous rules in one bold stroke is not exactly what I'd call altruistic. And at that, it even failed to reach its objectives. :) A short rule, though, if not a nice one. -[Rule 45:4 by Jeremy (Mon, 2 Oct 21:00:22) VALID 1.5 SPs]- In Biology much effort has been expended on trying to explain the occurrence of altruistic behaviors in what some have believed to be a dog-eat-dog Darwinian world. Presently, altruism is most commonly attributed to kinship survival, that is to say that an individual is most likely to act in a selfless manner when it benefits an individual (or group) who is (which are) likely to have genes in common with the altruistic individual. In that spirit, each player in this round must, in his/her first valid rule, identify his/herself as a member of one of three families, the Adams', the Barkers or the the Callahans. The number of members in each family shall always be as equal as possible. I am an Adams. -[Comments]- Validity : there is an issue of consistency here. If I were to judge this Rule as most players apparently would have liked me to judge 45:2, I'd rule it INVALID, because this rules gives a definition (families) and a restriction (equal numbers) which can be said to apply to ALL rules in the round, thus violating 45:2 which as of this time is still VALID. However, I judged that the definition in 45:2 did affect no more than half the rules at the time of its posting, and at this time 45:4 affects only one rule - itself. Note, however, that if more than three other rules by new players come in before 45:2 is voted INVALID, I will have to invalidate this rule because of the 'at any time' clause of 45:2. Style : a bit longish, but otherwise a very plausible and thematic rule. Mind you, the 'kinship' theory of altruism is somewhat controversial and not quite in accordance with orthodox Darwinian thought, but what the heck ! -[Rule End]- -[Rule 45:5 by Dug (Tue, 3 Oct 02:44:43) VALID 2 SPs]- We Callahans are political leftists. We believe that an altruistic society can be built through a system of imposed regulations. Without these regulations, players are likely to limit their good will to their own families. Therefore, in the interest of enforcing altruism, if any future rule imposes a restriction on other families, it must also impose a restriction which applies only to the author's own family. -Dug "Lefty" Callahan -[Comments]- Validity : no problem. Style : short, thematic, good follow-up on Jeremy's. -[Rule End]- -[Rule 45:6 by Ronald (Wed, 4 Oct 19:37:58) INVALID -2 SPs]- Apply Rule 45:4 and 45:5 to know my family! As the family name implies, we are the dictateurs of this game. But we dictate restrictions only in those Rules that other Rules allow us to. In such Rules: - Barkers shall not use their name - Adams and Callahans shall use their name as least as often as there are different Adams and Callahan identified. -[Comments]- Validity : it seems to me that by 'apply 45:4' you must be referring to the 'equal numbers' proviso, thus identifying yourself as a Barker. This is a rule in which you impose a restriction; therefore, you should not mention the name 'Barker'. If you're _not_ supposed to be a Barker, it's 45:4 that you are violating. Style : I don't at all see how this rule fits the theme; the prasing is very inelegant; so is the direct reference to two specific rules; the restrictions are far-fetched. -[Rule End]- -[Rule 45:7 by Stein Mon, 9 Oct 11:42:48) VALID 1.5 SPs]- Now that Dug Callahan has given his communist version of altruism, I - Stein Barker - would like to promote our family's conservative altruist view based on solid traditional morals and family standards. In short this sums up as "do unto others more than they have just done unto you". This means that whatever favors other families do to the Barkers shall be returned by a greater favor in the next rule by a Barker. However also, any restriction laid on the Barkers by any other family must from now on also be fulfilled *twice* in any rule from a member of the said family. -[Comments]- Validity : as of this, the only VALID rules left are 45:4 (no problem here) and 45:5 (looks fine to me). I just hope no one objects. :) Style : I hope I won't have too much of a hard time judging 'greater favors' and 'twice' in future rules, but it sounds interesting. -[Rule End]- -[Rule 45:8 by Jeremy Mon, 9 Oct 14:43:28) initially VALID, INVALID after 45:17 1.5 SPs]- As I have said before, I am an Adams. However, this hardly matters now after this glorious Autumn weekend which witnessed the nuptuals of Frank Callahan and Bertha Adams-Barker. We are all truly one family now, and should treat each other accordingly. (and so, I respectfully submit to the Judge that there are now no 'other' families to consider) It seems to me that the ultimate goal of altruism is not for each of us to consider sacrificing ourselves for the greater good, but rather to use our mental resources to ensure that the end product of this round is not a single winner and two losers, but rather three co-winners! Together we must discover a way to maneuver the Judge into declaring the round a three-way tie. So, I hereby declare that, after this rule, no restrictions shall be made. Instead, future rules shall include practical, implementable ideas for achieving a three-way tie. If one of the three remaining players becomes ineligible before this goal is achieved, this rule shall be considered null and void. All for one and one for all!!! Aramis Adams -[Comments]- Validity : okay, 45:4 _is_ satisfied; I see nothing in it to exclude non-players from the Three Families. Moreover, we now have 2 Barkers (Ronald, Stein), 3 Callahans (Frank, Bertha, and Dug), and 3 Adamses (Frank, Bertha, Aramis). Whatever the other families may think (and your restrictions certainly applies to 'other families'), it's just as obvious that, in your mind, it also applies 'only to your own family'. Since 45:5 did not specify a _different_ restriction, I consider it satisfied. And now for 45:6... It all hinges on whether I judge 'laid on the Barkers' as inclusive (in which case this rule fails) or exclusive. In the spirit of 45:5, I shall judge it exclusive - you impose a restriction on ALL families, not just the Barkers. Style : could have been shorter; however, I like the idea... but I take good note of the last part of your restriction. :) -[Rule End]- -[Rule 45:9 by Dug Tue, 10 Oct 01:18:47) VALID 0.5 SPs]- I support this glorious initiative, Aramis! I propose a toast: May we all go out fighting at the same moment. One of us should propose a time, and then each of us will submit a valid, restrictionless rule at that time on a certain day. Then we should each submit six invalid rules within the following 24 hours so that we all die in a blaze of glory simultaneously on the next day! Perhaps we should give the favor of choosing a starting time to our friend Mr. Barker? I only ask that you remember we Callahans live on the west coast of the U.S. and I believe the Adamses can be found on the east coast. United we stand! Drunk we fall! Dug "Porthos" Callahan -[Comments]- Validity : I don't see a restriction in there. Does anyone see a restriction in this rule ? No ? Okay, it's valid then. Style : ugh. What a preposterous idea ! A round with 18 invalid rules in less than a day ? I shudder at the thought. Collective suicide at that... No, I definitely don't like it, but keep trying. :) -[Rule End]- -[Rule 45:10 by Stein Tue, 10 Oct 09:31:35) VALID -1 SPs]- My dear Aramis, what a wonderful initiative, allow me to thank you by giving you one of the Barker's most treasured heirlooms, my great grandfather Beau's three-way tie (always had a most unconventional taste in clothes, old Beau). And Dug, I must say I am most delighted that you allow me to choose the time for our round end, yet I fear that this setup might not succeed as we might not all hit the right minute. May I instead offer another solution: Say we all submit seven rules that are conditional on the validity of rule 45:32. Then if an invalid 45:32 is posted (and in return of the favor given me by Dug, I will ask Dug to accept the honour of posting this last rule) then all these rules will immediately be invalid, and we will all become ineligible simultaneously. Yours sincerely Stein Barker -[Comments]- Validity : contains a proposal for ending the round in a 3-way tie and no restrictions, thus valid. Style : again, the idea of posting 7 invalid rules on purpose in one day is most unstylish. Also, I quite clearly stated, in EACH of my summaries for this round, that conditionally valid rules extended eligibility as VALID rules did, with no retroactive effects. You should have known your effort was doomed from the start. -[Rule End]- -[Rules 45:11 thru 45:17 by Stein Tue, 10 Oct 09:31:35) INVALID -1.5 SPs each]- This rule shall be valid only if 45:32 turns out to be valid -[Comments]- Validity : does not contain an idea for achieving a 3-way tie; moreover, it could be said that this rule imposes a restriction on itself, thus doubly violating 45:8. Style : you really blew it on that one. You get half a point for a (very) short rule, minus one point for trying to get conditionals into this round _again_, minus half a point for repeated postings, minus half a point for not adhering to the theme. Of course, it wouldn't be so bad if you hadn't submitted seven copies of the rule, thus incurring seven times the style point penalty. :) -[Rule End]- -[Rule 45:18 by Jeremy Tue, 10 Oct 21:03:03) VALID 2.5 SPs]- Altruism: acting for the greater good when such action is not necessarily for the good of the individual performing the action. By one light, since Dug is the only remaining player, I should now act in his best interest (based on my judgement on whether he would rather win and have to be Judge or lose and not have to). However, there is a "greater good" in the form of the FRC community at large, and I should consider their interests (being numerically greater) before Dug's. But what does the Community want? Do the players not in this round want it to end quickly so they can play again? Do the lurkers want to be entertained by the spectacle of Dug and I sparring to ever greater hights of peculiarity? I defer to you, FRC; if the following proposal passes, then I will quickly post sufficient invalid rules to take myself out of the game, if it does not, then I will do my best to prolong the round in the most entertaining way possible. PROPOSAL 45:D Rule 45:18 shall be declared INVALID **end proposal** In the meantime, to forestall Dug from making a quick exit himself, any rule posted by Dug before the above proposal times out, will be written in a very peculiar language called VALIDspeak which, on the face of it may look like almost any language, but always translates to the english sentence "This rule is VALID." -[Comments]- Validity : a close call here. By 45:5, since you impose a restriction on Dug, a Callahan, you must also impose a restriction that applies to Adamses only. I guess one can just barely interpret 'take myself out or entertain' as a restriction on future rules by yourself and therefore by an Adams. Style : in spite of the foregoing, I just love that 'restriction'. I'd have loved to see it posted from the start ! You lose half a point for length, though, and also in part before of the rather awkward inclusion of the proposal in the rule. -[Rule End]- -[Rule 45:19 by Dug Mon, Oct 17 16:11:56 INVALID 3 SP]- Stein offered me the honor of posting the last rule of this round. I accept that honor. This is the last rule. This rule shall be declared INVALID. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of ... the ... ugh. -[Rule End]- -[Comments]- Validity : well... Style : of course I can't award less. And at last we have a tie ! -[End Rules]-