Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 10:41:39 -0600 (CST) From: jgoo3855@stu.oru.edu To: frc@nvg.unit.no Subject: Round 67 Well apparently (and I'm more surprised by this than any of you) I am your judge for round 67. I promise to uphold the office with all the respect and dignity it is due (how much that is varies greatly with personal opinion). The theme for this round will be "God's point of view." To avoid confusion on my part with time zones, the round will begin 12 hours from the posting of this e-mail. Ørjan Johansen will post the first rule, but if Ørjan has not posted a rule within 12 hours of the beginning of the round, any player may post. Have fun, and post in prayer (how else can you know God's point of view, after all). John M. Goodman II Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 14:09:58 -0600 (CST) From: jgoo3855@stu.oru.edu To: frc@nvg.unit.no Subject: Ruling: 67:1 > >No rules yet? Here's an innocent one to get the show on the road. > >>>>>> >Jupiter scratched his head and sighed. >After all, it wasn't the first time that he had heard rumors >about the existence of gods other than he and his clan. >But here it was, black on white, written in the Olympian Times. > > Roman researcher claims: the Olympians are not the only Gods! > >While he was comtemplating his nectar, Zeus thought that it >would be nice to make a list of Pantheons, that were thought >to exist by the inhabitants of the earth. > >All rules shall list at least one different god from a Pantheon, >not mentioned before. >>>>>>>>>>> > >Greetings, >Ronald > Valid: I was going to declare this invalid, as it was a bit early. However, since Ørjan would like to "delegate the honor of starting the round to Ronald and his rule" I see no reason not to allow it. Style: +0.0 Not overly interesting--though the first rule seldom is. He took a different interpretation of this than I expected and hoped for. I thought the monotheistic view which "God's point of view" pointed to (after all, "God's" is singular) could have been quite interesting and humorous. Perhaps it's a Christian bias for montheism, but I didn't feel this really followed the theme as stated. On the other hand, it was well written and concise. John M. Goodman II P.S. Sorry these are coming so late--having problems with my email here... but I think everything's okay now. Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 14:10:09 -0600 (CST) From: jgoo3855@stu.oru.edu To: frc@nvg.unit.no Subject: Ruling 67:2 >Here's one... > >>>>> >Many gods are vain and jealous--most especially the Norse god Thor. He >has declared that in the future all discussion about him and the other >Norse gods not mention their names; merely their descriptions. > >Naturally, the other gods wouldn't want to look bad next to the god of >thunder, so henceforth they too will all place restrictions on human >worship of them. >>>>> > >Don > >-=-=-=-Don Blaheta-=-=-=-blahedo@quincy.edu-=-=-=-dblaheta@aol.com-=-=-=- >An elephant is a mouse with an operating system. > Validity: Valid At first I thought it was a simple rule, and valid. But, then I noticed that in 67:1 Pantheon was capitalized. So, in what sense in Pantheon capitalized? I know the Greek Pantheon is capitalized--when referring to the specific building. But 67:1 says "a Pantheon," so it must refer to any Pantheon. So what definition of Pantheon do we use? Must the gods have a Pantheon--meaning a kind of temple, built for them? Or does 67:1 intend for Pantheon to mean a group of gods worshipped by a certain people group? (I hate that term--people group... it's so generic) For that matter, if the former is true, did the Norse build their gods a Pantheon? Can the mythical Valhalla count as a Pantheon? But, since most (all?) monotheistic religions capitalize God, meaning the one true God, it seems likely that polytheistic religions would capitalized Pantheon, meaning the one true group of Gods. Therefore Norse Gods are acceptable. And I see no other reason to consider invalidating the rule, as 67:1 did not say rules had to mention the God by name. Style Points: 0.2 Not overly creative, but well written, and it made me think about the meaning of Pantheon (I'm amazed at how little things like capitalization can make such a difference). I don't really understand how vanity or jealousy would cause a God to wish their name NOT be mentioned, but gods can be a little funny about such things. I must thank you, Don, for giving me so much work. Now I'm going to not only have to recognize the names of Gods, but be able to tell by a description if someone is a) a god of a Pantheon and b) one not mentioned before. Oh, this is going to be a fun round. :) John M. Goodman II A little work never hurt anyone--at least, not anyone who lived to talk about it. Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 14:19:24 -0600 (CST) From: jgoo3855@stu.oru.edu To: frc@nvg.unit.no Subject: Re: 67:3 >While the Norse Gods are jealous of our use of their names, the Discworld Gods >know of their rise and fall. The Great God Om, for example, was reduced to >a lowly incarnation of a tortoise because his followers lost touch with the >true Om. Om's prophets devised numerous commandments which they abjured the >people to follow, and thus Om require that he be fed regularly with lettuce, >and that no supplication to Om is complete without mention of at least one >green vegetable. > >Om also requires that no Gods mentioned in future be known to have incarnated >as birds of prey. They can do very nasty things to a tortoise.... > > >Duncan (with sincerest apologies to Terry Pratchett) Richer >-- >Duncan C.Richer aka Slakko! - The Lost Warner Brother with No Free Time >duncan@student.adelaide.edu.au-TTA-SSPA-WB-Keeper of DOT/RITA for a.t.a >A! JW21 WAR++iP&B+SL++^MM++HIP---P++ Dpd $++ E15 Ee1 Eee47 H6 T192/Slappy Ay76 >PonTutu XConjug M "Oh sure. Take all the umbrage. Don't leave any for us." > > Valid: Seems simple enough--the first part of 67:2 seems only to apply to Norse Gods, and the second part simply says that restrictions will be placed--and here one is. I'm assuming that Om is a God in Ringwolrd--as I have never read any Ringworld stories, nor do I know anyone in Tulsa who has (I'm sorry, I'm not going to call long distance to my friends in Cincinnati just to find out this minor point). Style Points: +0.3 Not bad for a first rule, Slakko. Though the restriction seemed a bit specific (there aren't THAT many gods who have been incarnated as birds of prey). I do like the idea of bringing in gods that were only worshipped by a fictional people. I wonder, though, how to take the phrase "known to have." If the author of a rule professes ignorance of the fact that a god was incarnated as a bird of prey... but, I doubt that will happen. Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 14:34:38 -0600 (CST) From: jgoo3855@stu.oru.edu To: frc@nvg.unit.no Subject: Ruling: 67.4 >The God of the Christian New Testament is a loving and compassionate >god. Therefore He requires that all His followers will also be loving and >compassionate. >Similarly, all future rules must not speak ill of any gods or followers >of other gods. Also, God specifies that there shall be "No gods before >Me," and therefore no others shall claim to be better than this God in >any way. > >-bill >hope this is cool - my first rule :) > >#*=--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----=*# >William Maciejewski wmmaci@cs.wm.edu > silly & boring homepage: http://cs.wm.edu/~wmmaci/index.html >Computer Science grad @ William and Mary / Grad Asst at VIMS >"Sleepless": a new progrock show: 90.7 FM Wmsburg VA Wed 6-9pm >Heuristics Inc.: improv-sequenced-electronic-ambient-industrial? >#*=--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----=*# >"You're wierd. But that results in creativity." - Crow T. Robot > > Invalid: A Pantheon is defined as a group of gods worshipped by a people. It is written in Ephesians 4:4-7, "There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all..." He is not part of a Pantheon, but is the only God that His people worship. Therefore, due to rule 67:1, I must sadly declare this invalid. Style Points: +1.0 This was a nice attempt to return the the monotheistic theme intended, even if it did fail. Another judge once said that flattery will get you somewhere (once). Well, for this judge, flattering his God will get you even further (again, only once). It was much better written than my first rule (which was equally invalid). John M. Goodman II ***---***---***--***---***---***---***---***---*** In the beginning there was nothing. And God said, "Let there be light." And there was still nothing, but you could see it! ***---***---***--***---***---***---***---***---*** Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 18:00:45 -0600 (CST) From: jgoo3855@stu.oru.edu To: frc@nvg.unit.no Subject: Ruling: 67: 5 >>>>>>> >The one-eyed God popped a couple of pills for his hangover, and picked the >morning edition of The Valhalla Valkyrie. Ignoring the poor souls damned to >spend eternity cleaning up after the nightly carousing of the honored dead, >he flipped through the paper. in the sports session, he noticed that >Quetzalcoatl was to referee a tag team meade-wrestling match. It seems that >Juno and Diane would be contending in a grudge match with Hera and Artemis. >Snorting, he turned on to the Community section to see what those wild and >crazy druidic spirits were planning that evening. > >Because Gods love to argue, and the winning Gods love their worshippers to >of their victories in the intercine struggles of the Immortals, every fifth >rule shall give some detail of such a dispute. > >>>>>>> > >FYI: To make it easy on our judge, the one-eyed God is Odin, and >Quetzalcoatl was a plumed serpent, therefore not a bird. >Luke Vaughn | Home page: >lvaughn@efn.org | http://www.efn.org/~lvaughn > >"I realize that I've made some very poor decisions recently, Dave, but I > still have the utmost confidence in the mission." > - HAL 9000 > > > Valid: Seems fine. Mentions more than one god--none of which have been mentioned efore (in the case of Quetzalcoatl--I've NEVER heard him mentioned before in my life, not just in this round). No birds of prey (at least not to my, nor Luke's, knowledge). And, the Norse gods were not mentioned by name. Seems fine. Style Points: +0.4 The every fifth rule limitation will probably only show up once or twice more, so it doesn't seem too interesting. Though, if it were every rule, I suppose these rules could end up looking like a game of Doom. Notifying me (outside of the rule) of whom the gods were was a nice jesture (I doubt I would ever have come up with Quetzalcoatl's name). John M. Goodman II Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 18:09:04 -0600 (CST) From: jgoo3855@stu.oru.edu To: frc@nvg.unit.no Subject: Re: 67: 6 [William Maciejewski - archive manager's remark] >Anubis, the jackal-headed god, judges the souls of the deceased and guides >them on their journey to the underworld. He is the inventor of embalming, >and therefore strives to preserve and glorify the dead. Anubis's worshippers >are required to remember the deeds of the Pharoahs with great adoration. >Therefore, every rule henceforth must pay homage to some deceased person. > Valid: Seems fine. I'm assuming that a jackal-headed god has never been a bird of prey. Style points: +0.5 Been a while since we had a rule that was both valid and applied to all future rules. (We've had ones for Norse Gods, birds of prey (sort of means all other rules), every fifth rule... but few that apply to every rule) John M. Goodman II Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 18:14:29 -0600 (CST) From: jgoo3855@stu.oru.edu To: frc@nvg.unit.no Subject: Ruling: 67:7 >The Bear-God Belar, brought to us in David Eddings' Belgariad and Malloreon >series, is the youngest of seven brothers, and thus is ever the practical >joker. Note that Eddings is a fantasy writer, and heir to the great tradition >of fantasy which really traces its roots back to the great J.R.R. Tolkien. > >Belar's practical jokes have extended to setting booby traps for other Gods. >No God in future rules may be named that contains at least three distinct >letters (regardless of case) which are contained in "Belar". Such Gods have >been caught in a trap and are temporarily unavailable while Belar laughs at >them. > >Yours, >Slakko >-- Valid: Seems fine to me :) Style Points: +0.5 Creative explanation. Though it would be nice if the workings of the trap were explained (so we knew why the letters caused them to be trapped). And of course, Tolkien is, as always, the ultimate writer. John M. Goodman II Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 14:04:51 -0600 (CST) From: jgoo3855@stu.oru.edu To: frc@nvg.unit.no Subject: Ruling: 67:8 >Ea, the patron of mankind in the Babylonian pantheon (the Babylonians, >by the way, were once ruled by Hammurabi, who has the honor of creating one >of the first written codes of law), always argues for the well-being >of mankind. For example, the other gods once decreed that a flood must >befall mankind, but Ea protested this decision. >Ea decrees that no further rule may describe any god who has caused mass >destruction upon makind, such as a flood or pestilence. >Ea, also the instructor of all crafts, decrees that Man must exercise his >creativity (for example, by creating rules) :) > >-bill >PS Ea, AKA Enki, incarnates as a goat-fish, not a bird of prey. Just so > you know... > Valid: I was worried about Ea containing three distinct letters from Belar--until I realized that Ea only contains two distinct letters :) But seriously, this seems totally valid. I was beginning to wonder if we would get any more rules this round. Style Points: +0.4 This seems to be a decent restriction. And I like the call for more rules at the end. John M. Goodman II Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 16:24:59 -0600 (CST) From: jgoo3855@stu.oru.edu To: frc@nvg.unit.no Subject: Round 67, winner Well, that was an interesting round (at least, to me--since it was my first time on the other side of the game). It looks like bill (William Maciejewski) is our winner and new judge. He also has the most Style Points... The Points came out like this. Ronald +0.0 1 valid Don Blaheta +0.2 1 valid Luke Vaughn +0.4 1 valid Slakko +0.8 2 valid bill +1.9 2 valid, 1 invalid John M. Goodman II