Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 13:43:55 -0500 From: William Maciejewski To: frc@nvg.unit.no Subject: Round 68 Hi all, Seems that we should probably move on to Round 68. Forgive me if the time range is bad. Be advised that I may do stuff wrong. Feel free to let me know in email if there's something I should be doing differently! Seeing as it's almost the weekend, I'd like to see the first rule posted by noon on Monday (I guess by the sabre-wulf header? Anyone have an idea where I can find this thing? I have two times, one after "From" and another after "Date" - which is accurate?) I suggest the first rule should be posted by our illustrious ex-judge Mr. Goodman. The topic for this round is: "Building a Better Alien." Hope you enjoy it; talk to you soon. -bill PS: This email is my work account. I'm also going to sign up for the list from my school account, so I can get emails every day - it's difficult for me to read work at school and vice versa. So I'll be signed up under wmmaci@vims.edu and wmmaci@cs.wm.edu. Just so you know. #*=--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----=*# 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 Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 18:27:32 -0500 From: "William M. Maciejewski" To: frc@nvg.unit.no Subject: Ruling 68:1 -> Valid, +1 >68:1 John Goodman, Nov 15 14:48 > >Members of the FRC, it seems we have been charged with a holy mission from >God. He has told me through a vision that He plans to create a new race, >superior to our own, but He can't quite decide how to do this. He has >created a solar system for these aliens--far from our own, and nearly >identical to our own--but He has not yet added life. See, the Almighty >can't decide if this alien race should be carbon based, silicon based, or a >completely energy based life form. It is up to us to decide. > >In hopes of deciding, each future rule must choose one of these three types >of life and defend it as the best form for the Lord to create. No player >can defend more than one type of life form, and no player can begin to >defend a life type that is supported by a majority of previous valid rules. > >Remember, the purpose of this new alien life is, as of yet, unrevealed to us. > >>>>>>>>> > >Hope this is creative enough for ya'll. And, though I may not end up >defending it, I've always been partial to carbon based life myself. :) > >John M. Goodman II Ruling: Valid. No reason not to! Style: Puts an interesting spin, I hadn't thought of non-carbon myself. Actually not too far from what I had in mind. Also an interesting restriction. +1 -bill Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 09:23:43 -0500 From: William Maciejewski To: frc@nvg.unit.no Subject: Ruling 68:2 -> Valid, +.5 > >>>>> > It's obvious that God should create an energy based life form, E-form > Apart from the enormous advantage that an E-form does not have to > brush its teeth (ever!), God does not have to fill in all these > little details. Take a typical C-planet like Earth, with its > billions and billions of C-forms. To create those God had to think > of all colours, invent all these different shapes, skins and tails. > > And all of that in six (6!) days. > > No, E-forms is the way to go: only one spectrum, two aspects and > four dimensions to take care of. > > The next rule shall expand on the way E-forms "go forth and multiply". > >>>>>> > Greetings, > Ronald > Ruling: Valid. Style: A well-written rule, although the restriction only applies to the next rule. +.5 Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 09:40:05 -0500 From: William Maciejewski To: frc@nvg.unit.no Subject: Ruling: 68:3 -> Valid, -.5 > >>>>> > Carbon based, or C-forms, are obviously the way to go. The very details > that Ronald claims are the advantage of E-forms are what make C-forms so > wonderful. What is life without the little things like color and shape. > Devoid of expressions such as these, how does life show it's feelings? And, > without feelings and emotion, life is little more than automation. > Consider the advantages of reproduction alone. Being carbon based life, we > know all the joy that can come in a monogamous relationship. With energy > based life, being fruitful and multiplying would not be possible in the > sense we know. They would have no way to create another of their kind--no > gender at all for that matter--they're only way to "multiply" is to increase > their own energy output, and thus their range of movement and the amount of > physical space they can encompass at once. > >>>>> > > John M. Goodman II > Ruling: Valid, since it defends and explains E-form reproduction. Style: I'm kind of bummed by the fact that there isn't any sort of restriction imposed by this rule. However, the R.O.'s don't seem to mandate that rules must restrict so I'll just deduct some style :) -.5 -bill Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 09:45:24 -0500 From: William Maciejewski To: frc@nvg.unit.no Subject: Ruling 68:4 -> Valid, +1 > ==== > While I agree with John that the boring simplicity of E-Forms is, well, > boring, it is clear that C-forms go too far in the other direction. Just > to get a little bit of intelligence it is necessary to have a huge brain > consisting of ridiculously complex cells and what not. > > Silicon based life (or Si-forms) is much more compact, since the important > structures can be built directly as electronic nano-components, and it is > not necessary with any intermediate cell structure. This also gives the > Si-forms a great technological advantage, since for them, biotechnology > and electronics are one and the same. > > I wish to stress the important technology issue: The future Rules from > non-Si-supporters will have to elaborate on how the non-Si-forms get > around their obvious technological deficiencies. > ==== > > Greetings, > Oerjan. > Ruling: Sounds fine to me: defends a non-majority, and the other two don't apply. Valid. Style: I like the restriction and rationale, so I''ll give it +1. -bill Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 10:02:00 -0500 From: William Maciejewski To: frc@nvg.unit.no Subject: Ruling 68:5 -> Invalid, +0 > >>>>> > >From God's Point of View, E-forms have another advantage. > If one creates energy based life, then it is very simple > (for God) to make these beings evolve into C-forms or Si-Forms. > It might take a few eons of course, but God has all the time > in the Cosmos. > > The proof of the statement lies is in Genesis 1. > God said: "Let there be Light" and there was Light. > > And what is Light other than an E-form? > > As we know, the same planet since evolved C-forms and Si-forms. > > Like this Rule, future Rules shall back up their defenses of E-, C- > and Si-forms with statements from our only manual on God, the Bible. > >>>>> > > Greetings, > Ronald > Ruling: Rule 68:4 states: "The future Rules from non-Si-supporters will have to elaborate on how the non-Si-forms get around their obvious technological deficiencies." While the "evolving into other forms" might be how God gets around the deficiencies, it is clearly not how the life forms themselves get around them. Gotta call it invalid... Style: Well. This is quite a restriction... I'm not sure right now so I'll give it a +0. -bill Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 16:33:08 -0500 From: William Maciejewski To: frc@nvg.unit.no Subject: Ruling 68:6: Valid, +1 > After I forgot to include a restriction in my last rule (I'm still hitting > myself over that), I just had to post another one. :) Thanks! > >>>>> > Oerjan's comments on Si-forms are very valid, to an extent. But his > definition of technology seems limited. What need is there for electronics > and such, when biological forms can be made. If God were to make another > carbon based form, and He were to deem technology important enough, surely > he could give them an inborn ability to alter dna. Then it would merely be > a matter of redesigning the life around them to fulfill any technological > need. What is more, this would eventually make space travel much easier--as > their living craft could be powered by natural forces such as light. True, > light is dim outside of any given solar system--but no technology has yet > shown a way to travel interstellar distances and survive the trip. > The true advantage of carbon based life is the inherent ability of self > repair. Silicon based forms could not regenerate damage to their own bodies > as carbon based forms can. And energy based forms lack the substance of > both Si and C-forms. Further, no silicon or energy based life has ever been > known to house an immortal soul--without which communion with God is > impossible. > Future rules must explain how their preferred form of life can commune with > it's creator. > >>>>>> Ruling: Valid. Continues to defend C-forms, explains overcoming of technology, etc. Ok! Style: Creative and rational! I like it. And it has a restriction :) Give it a +1. -bill Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 17:15:50 -0500 From: William Maciejewski To: frc@nvg.unit.no Subject: Round 68 ends... Well, that's it for 68. Looks like John Goodman's "hope this isn't the last rule" was the last rule. And again Mr. Goodman is the Judge and Wizard (whatever that means) for round 69. You guys are welcome to make any cracks that you'd like about the round number. Anyway, here's the final standings: Last rule ruled on: 68:6. Player Style Eligible Until Defends John D. Goodman +1.5 Nov 29 14:49 C Ronald +.5 Nov 22 14:35 E Oerjan +1 Nov 23 16:24 Si Well, I'm off for vacation back at home in Buffalo. See you folks next Mon. -bill #*=--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----=*# 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