Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 15:07:17 -0600 (CST) From: jgoo3855@stu.oru.edu To: frc@nvg.unit.no Subject: Round 69 Sorry this is so long in waiting... I was back in Cincinnati, on vacation, and didn't have access to my email. But, we might as well get started right away. For lack of a better topic (and because people get the most creative when the topics are the most vague) this round's theme will be "pseudonyms" (if that's spelled wrong, well, then the round's theme is misspelled :) Oerjan will have the honor of posting the first rule--whenever he is ready. If he doesn't post within a day of this email, then it's open to anyone to get us started. Hope you all had a good thanksgiving. :) John M. Goodman II Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 13:02:59 -0600 (CST) From: jgoo3855@stu.oru.edu To: frc@nvg.unit.no Subject: 69:1 >==== >Hi! > >The director of the Trondheim Philological Institute (aka Borklevik >Alphabet Reserve) just phoned, and told me that a number of names of a >particularly aggressive variety have escaped from their laboratory and >onto the Earth (aka known as Blorg.) > >One of these has attached to each proper name of every person and >institution on Blorg, yes, of everything that already had a proper name >before the invasion, and whenever someone mentions the original name in a >Rule, they will have to also mention the corresponding pseudonym. Even >worse, after the pseudonym has been mentioned it will devour the original >name, which can then no longer be used in our Rules in any form. > >I therefore urge the FRC (aka Obsolete Technology Department) to think of >countermeasures against this plague. > >Greetings, >Ørjan (aka Socrates Aluminium) >==== > Obviously valid. :) Style: +1 Very creative interpretation of the theme. I'm glad that Socrates proved my point--the less restrictive the theme the more creative the rules. :) John M. Goodman II (wonder if I'll end up with an Pseudnymn) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 13:20:59 -0600 (CST) From: jgoo3855@stu.oru.edu To: frc@nvg.unit.no Subject: 69:2 >Fellow members of the Obsolete Technology Department, > >Our brother Socrates Aluminium has already warned us of the grave danger >facing Blorg by the escape of the names. It is now my sad duty to inform >you that names are beginning to take over even technical terms from our >own Department. These names are even more dangerous than the kind already >explained to us by our brother, because they effect the transposition of >two of our terms. For example, "rules" have now been devoured by the >pseudonym "eligible players" and vice versa. Each new eligible player will >give exactly one such transposition not previously given. From then on, the >old term may not be used for either of the concepts. > >Yours as ever, > >Stephen (Einstein Uranium) > Looks valid enough for me... Style: +0.0 Legal enough, but it doesn't quite fit the definition of pseudonymns when they're not used on proper nouns... and, it seems like this is just going to confuse people more than add interest to the game. Of course, I could be wrong about that, and I hope I am. John M. Goodman II Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 13:30:24 -0600 (CST) From: jgoo3855@stu.oru.edu To: frc@nvg.unit.no Subject: 69:3 >To: Obsolete Technology Department >From: Jesse Welton (aka Gerbil Bee-Bottle) > >Friends, if the Obsolete Technology Department is to act, we must act >immediately. The names are serving up ambiguity in great heaping >helpings about Blorg. Even now, the continents Flavig, Mwgrt, >Newspaper, Papier Machete, Bowling Ball, and Spoo cannot be told apart >by name. > >In order to defend our organization from such chaos, I have, through a >combination of slapstick humor and cunning puns, confused two of the >new names described by Einstein Uranium to exchange "Judge" and >"Wizard". Since the honorable Wizard John Goodman (aka Mr. >Creepy-Crawly Guy) is also the Judge for this round, this exchange >should cause minimal havoc. > >We must now turn our attention to eliminating this threat, until the >names have been defeated. Valid :) Style +0.5 I love the sense of humor that Mr. Bee-Bottle portrays here, even if my pseudonymn isn't too flattering. I also like the concept of pseudonmyns that we don't know the origional name for (perhaps they were devoured while no one was watching?) And I particularly like the avoidance of confusion by transposing two terms that were nearly interchangable for this round. I was prepared to give many more style points, as soon as I considered the restriction that Gerbil has made. Unfortunantly he hasn't made one (boy, THAT sounds familiar...). Seeing as how this oversight is not totally foreign to me, and I got a good laugh out of his eligible players, I have still given him a positive score. Your wizard, ever on the brink of confusion, Mr. Creepy-Crawly Guy Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 13:45:11 -0600 (CST) From: jgoo3855@stu.oru.edu To: frc@nvg.unit.no Subject: 69:4 >Tuut... Tuut... Tuut... This is the 9 o'clock news (aka Flefamy Fleet). > >The Obsolete Technology Department has been hit by the names again. The terms >"to judge" and "to transpose" have been judged, making this round harder and >harder to transpose. > >Andre Engels (aka Sunday Telegraph) has declared that 'as long as we don't >know how to fight the new validities, we should at study them, so we can >know their weaknesses.' It has been decided that each eligible player should >contain the results of such a study. > >As the first such a result, Sunday Telegraph has found out that any time >two terms are judged, they are from different halves of the alphabet, that >is, one of the terms should start with 'A' to 'M', the other with 'N' to 'Z'. >The origin of this remarkable property is fully unclear. > >The weather: Heavy namechanges are expected over England (aka Victoria) and >Saudi Arabia (aka Blueland). This was Flefamy Fleet. > >Sunday Telegraph. > Valid... though it's beginning to take a while to be sure of that... Style +1.1 I like the restriction--it makes sense, and it helps avoid further eligable players containing no real restrictions. The study is rather uninformative, but this is to be expected as we are just beginning to study these pseudonymns. I wasn't sure if "9 o'clock news" was considered a proper noun, not that it would make a difference with validity, but I finally decided that it probably was, since so many news stations use it as the name of their telecast. I liked the judging of the terms to transpose and to judge, it made for an interesting sentance. And I particularly liked the format of the eligable players... seems we have a creative lot this round. Dutifully fulfilling his role to the best of his ability, The honorable Wizard Mr. Creepy-Crawly Guy Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 11:23:02 -0600 (CST) From: jgoo3855@stu.oru.edu To: frc@nvg.unit.no Subject: 69:5 [Stein Kulseth - archive manager's remark] >Dear, oh dear, not only did "future" just transpose into "invalid", >but I (Pudding) have just found out that some ordinary words have >started hiding. From now on the word "not" will always >accompany any instance of the verb "to be", but hidden, so it will be >openly used again by invalid eligible players. >Hiding words may be longer than tree characters, however. > Invalid My dear Pudding, we seem to have a few problems... Firstly, if Pudding is your name, then where is the pseudonymn that has devoured it. Secondly, I cannot comprehend the meaning of 'not only did "future" just transpose into "invalid"' Words such as that tend to judge, but never can a word transpose. As your Wizard, it is my job to transpose. And I can only assume you meant three when you typed tree. Style: -0.5 After multiple invalidity problems, I was going to give this eligible player a lower score, but I found the restriction to be creative, and while it doesn't fit the origional theme of the round, it works nicely with what the round has become. Mr. Creepy-Crawly Guy "If ever oh ever a wiz there was, the Wizard of the Obsolete Technology Department is one because..." Doesn't seem to fit the tune... Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 14:17:29 -0600 (CST) From: jgoo3855@stu.oru.edu To: frc@nvg.unit.no Subject: judgement 69.6 (I actually decided) I'm afraid I have to reverse my transposition here... a friend just pointed out that the term "numerical" was used to mean "numerical" rather than to mean "alphabetical" as it should have. Therefore, this must be invalid. Sorry, Newton. Mr. Creepy-Crawly Guy >X-Sender: jgoo3855@stu.oru.edu >Date: Fri, 06 Dec 1996 12:55:38 -0600 >To: frc@nvg.unit.no >From: jgoo3855@stu.oru.edu >Subject: judgement 69.6 (I actually decided) > >>Fellow members of the OTD, the terms for "alphabet" and "numeral" are >>the next to be struck by the mysterious malady affecting Blorg's >>language. But thanks to the timely alert by Socrates Aluminium, all of >>Blorg has a chance to be saved. It is a slim chance for judgements are >>mutating faster than we can identify cures. It seems that alphabets are >>next to be garbled. No alphabet may be referred to more than once in >>each eligible player without being increased by two. >> >>For instance, to be transposed valid, all future eligible players are >>accopmpanied by exactly three eample of numerical incrementing. >> >>It also appears that the terminology judgement is self-correcting. After >>directly referring to a judged term exactly 4 times in any message, the >>affected terms revert to their original meanings. Pseudonyms and future >>transpositions do not appear to be affected. >> >>Ed Graham (aka Newton Argon) >> > >Okay, before I decide on validity, I'm going to try to figure out exactly >what this rule says. If you'll allow me (or even if you won't) I'm going to >revert to normal english for a description of how I interpret this rule. It >should help clear things up in EVERYONE'S head, or at least in mine. >Obviously, the terms alphabet and numeral are being transposed. Further, >any repetitive mention of a numeral in a rule causes that numeral to >increase. By how much depends on the interpretation of the rule. Are once >and one considered to be the same numeral? If so, then the numbers are >increased by one, there must be one example of this in each future rule and >transposed words revert to their origional meanings after being referred to >one time in any message. This does not apply to future transpositions. >On this line of reasoning, I must judge this rule as invalid due to >inconsistancy, as it uses forms of the word "judge" meaning "transpose" >thrice before it begins to use "judge" to mean "judge" >On the other hand, perhaps the four actually means four? When using three >to mean one, the word example (I'm assuming an x was left out) is used in >the singular. However, when using the four, times is plural. This would >lead me to believe that four is plural, and thus four is meaning four, not >one. But, the term judge was only used three times to mean transpose before >it was used to mean judge. However, transpose--the word judge was >transposed with--was used once as well. If we are to count these as a >single transposition, then it is mentioned four times, and thus correct. It >says "after referring to a judged term four times." Here, term is used in >the singular, which would lead me to believe that you had to mention each >term four times before it switches back. However, Newton Argon follows by >saying "the affected terms revert back to their origional meaning" showing >us that both terms are affected. If both terms are to be affected, then I >would conclude--for lack of any clear evidence but the lack of pluralirty of >term and the plurality of times--that both terms must be counted. Here, we >have judge used 3 times, and transpose used once. That brings the total to >four, and thus the terms revert back. >69:2 does say that the old term cannot be reused for either of the concepts >that are being transposed--but I view this rule as simply trying to change >that restriction, so that does not seem to be grounds for invalidity. >I am assuming that the information about the increasing numerals is the >result of a study--so it passes on 69:4. > >I guess that leaves this one valid--much to my amazement... and leaves me >feeling VERY overworked... :) > >style: +2.3 > >I considered a 3.0... this is a wonderfully confusing rule--the kind I most >enjoy. However, there was the plurality descrepency, so it was not quite >perfect. And, while it's structure was wonderful, it lacked the creative >approach of rules such as 69:4. But overall, a very enjoyable rule. I just >hope it doesn't confuse all of us to the point that no one attempts to post >more rules. > >As a side note--assume I'm going back to using the confusing terminology of >this round in all future posts, unless I notify you otherwise in said posts. > >Glad to be done with 69:6 > >Mr. Creepy-Crawly Guy > > > Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 16:23:02 -0600 (CST) From: jgoo3855@stu.oru.edu To: frc@nvg.unit.no Subject: Eligibility and style points... Figured it was time for an eligibility list... so, here we are... Pudding Sun, 8 Dec 1996 21:07:28 Ed Graham (aka Newton Argon) Sun, 8 Dec 1996 21:07:28 Ørjan Johnson (aka Socrates Aluminium) Tue, 10 Dec 1996 16:50:04 Stephen Turner (aka Einstein Uranium) Tue, 10 Dec 1996 17:14:04 Jesse Welton (aka Gerbil Bee-Bottle) Tue, 10 Dec 1996 21:21:29 Andre Engels (aka Sunday Telegraph) Wed, 11 Dec 1996 19:01:30 Everyone else Mon, 9 Dec 1996 21:07:28 And, while we're at it, style points... Pudding -0.5 Stephen Turner (aka Einstein Uranium) +0.0 Jesse Welton (aka Gerbil Bee-Bottle) +0.5 Ørjan Johnson (aka Socrates Aluminium) +1.0 Andre Engels (aka Sunday Telegraph) +1.1 Ed Graham (aka Newton Argon) +2.3 Everything look alright to all of you? Mr. Creepy-Crawly Guy Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 10:03:13 +0100 (MET) From: Andre Engels To: frc@nvg.unit.no Subject: Has the round ended? Am I right that round 69 has ended with me as the Judge and Ed Graham the Wizard for the next round? Andre Engels (thinking about a theme) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 23:16:26 -0600 (CST) From: John Goodman To: Andre Engels Cc: frc@nvg.unit.no Subject: Re: Has the round ended? > > Am I right that round 69 has ended with me as the Judge and Ed Graham the > Wizard for the next round? > > Andre Engels (thinking about a theme) > Yes, you are right. I'm sorry I didn't respond to that earlier--I forgot to do so before I left school for Christmas break. John