From S.R.E.Turner@statslab.cam.ac.ukMon Jun 19 20:17:38 1995 Date: Mon, 19 Jun 95 19:06:31 BST From: Stephen Turner To: frc@nvg.unit.no Subject: Round 38 ends; Storm wins A large level of participation in this round (most of it intentional!) and a large number of rules in a relatively short time. Congratulations to Storm, who was not only the first person to enter a round unintentionally, but the first person to win a round without even meaning to submit a rule. I hope she can judge round 39. Congratulations also to the new Wizard, Oerjan. Overall I enjoyed this round. I think rounds like this work much better than the long story type. There were two main problems. First, what did 38:1 mean? I realised that if rules n and n+1 were both valid apart from 38:1, there were two ways to go; one had to be declared valid and the other invalid, and either way was consistent. I chose to give priority to the earlier rule, making it valid, although many of the committee thought that the other interpretation was the more natural. The other was whether 38:5 was valid, but I've put all that in the summary. So without further ado: FRC round 38 ------------ Start of round: Mo-12-Jun-95 07:00 (all times GMT). Theme: Paradoxes Wizard: Ronald Judge: Stephen Rules judged: 34 (8 valid, 0 conditionally valid, 24 invalid, 2 unsuccessful; 23%, 0%, 71%, 6%) Total style points awarded on rules: 17.1 (+0.503 per rule) Bonus style points awarded: 3.5 Summary of eligibilities and style points: Player (rules) Eligible until Last Style points ----------------------- ------------------ ------- ------------ The Wizard (2, 0, 1, 0) We-21-Jun-95 14:36 Valid 2 ----------------------- ------------------ ------- ------------ Dave (1, 0, 2, 1) Mo-19-Jun-95 17:57 Invalid 1 Oerjan (2, 0, 7, 0) Mo-19-Jun-95 17:24 Invalid 8.6 **WIZARD** Storm (1, 0, 0, 0) Mo-19-Jun-95 17:16 Valid 1.5 **WINNER** Stein (1, 0, 1, 0) Mo-19-Jun-95 10:59 Valid 1 Others (0, 0, 0, 0) Mo-19-Jun-95 07:00 (None) 0 Dug (0, 0, 0, 1) Mo-19-Jun-95 07:00 Unsucc. -2 Peter (0, 0, 1, 0) Su-18-Jun-95 07:00 Invalid 3.5 Andre (0, 0, 1, 0) Su-18-Jun-95 07:00 Invalid -2.5 Vanyel (1, 0, 4, 0) Sa-17-Jun-95 14:40 Invalid 5.5 Sagitta (0, 0, 3, 0) Fr-16-Jun-95 07:00 Invalid 0.5 Jeremy (0, 0, 4, 0) Th-15-Jun-95 18:46 Invalid 1.5 ========== Bonus style points: ------------------- 1 to Dave for Monty Python knowledge. 2 to the Wizard for 38:A. 0.5 to Peter for knowing about Monty Python too. Votes: ------ 38:A (The Wizard) Vote ended Th-15-Jun-95 07:45 PROPOSAL PASSED ---- >>>>> During this round regular Ordinance 5 shall read: "5. End of Game. If at any time after the seventh day of a round, there is only one person eligible to play, then (a) all current fantasy rules are repealed (b) the round ends (c) the last player who became ineligible to post a Rule, but who's last posted Rule was valid, is declared winner of the just ended round and becomes Judge." >>>>> For 6: The Wizard, Stephen, Stein, Storm, Dug, Sagitta Aga 2: Oerjan, Peter 38:B (Jeremy) Vote ended Fr-16-Jun-95 19:05 PROPOSAL FAILED ---- >>>>> I propose that the final line of the third R.O. be changed to read "The Judge is always eligible" for the duration of this round. >>>>> For 1: Jeremy Aga 5: Oerjan, The Wizard, Stephen, Peter, Andre 38:C (Jeremy) Vote ended Sa-17-Jun-95 14:24 PROPOSAL FAILED ---- >>>>> That 38:19 be declared valid. >>>>> For 3: Jeremy, Peter, Andre Aga 3: Stephen, Oerjan, The Wizard ========== Rule 38:1 (The Wizard) Mo-12-Jun-95 07:45 VALID (+1.5 SP) >>>>> Any Rule is only valid, if its successor is invalid *and* is posted by another Player. >>>>> Judgement: This one scrapes through. The problem is in the last clause ("and is posted by another player"). I can see why it was added (so that a player can't post one rule and then another trivially invalid one in quick succession to make the first one valid) but think the remedy doesn't work very well. What if the Wizard decided in 3 days' time to post another rule, no-one else having had a go since? (Or in general, if a player decided to post another rule immediately after eir valid rule)? That would produce a contradiction whether the second rule were valid or invalid. We can only conclude that the player is not allowed to post at that time. However, this contradicts the R.O.s. ("Eligible to play" in R.O.4 can only mean "may post fantasy rules"). The Wizard suggested in a personal e-mail that I could temporarily judge rules "UNDECIDED", i.e. suspend judgement until the next rule came along, but I don't think it helps. After three days the rule would become valid by timeout, and the same problem arises. However, I think the following will work. I shall use a new judgement, "CONDITIONALLY VALID" which means that that rule will be valid if the next rule comes along within three days and is written by somebody else, but if the rule is timed out, or the next rule is by the same person, I shall be considered to have declared the rule invalid. The point is that a rule can never be valid until another rule has been posted, because that would make its author both able and unable to play, as described above. Note that a conditionally valid rule is NOT valid for the purpose of calculating eligibilities. Style points: A good rule, right on theme. I think "if the next rule (if any) posted by another player is invalid" would have worked better, and would have got more SPs, but I suppose I did ask for paradoxes! 1 point, plus 0.5 for brevity. ===== Rule 38:2 (Stein) Mo-12-Jun-95 09:03 INVALID (+0.5 SP) >>>>> Rule 38:1 is valid. Rule 38:1 is not valid. >>>>> Judgement: Trivially invalid. Style points: "That's not a paradox, that's just contradiction." (1 bonus SP for anyone who can name the Monty Python sketch I'm parodying). Presumably just written in response to 38:1, so I don't penalise it. 0.5 for brevity. ===== Rule 38:3 (Stein) Mo-12-Jun-95 10:59 VALID (+0.5 SP) >>>> All valid rules in round 38 (except of course 38:1) must be posted in less than 48 hours after the last valid, or conditionally valid, rule. >>>> Judgement: No problem. Style points: Should keep the game moving! I don't really see it as a paradox though. Glad we're keeping those rules short. ===== Rule 38:4 (Sagitta) Mo-12-Jun-95 15:28 INVALID (+1 SP) >>>>> The Judge shall choose a secret number (X), an integer between 3 and 31. All rules numbered higher than 38:X will be invalid. However, other committee members will not know the value of X until rule 38:X is judged. >>>> Judgement: I had to wait to judge this one to find out whether Sagitta had received 38:3 before posting this. He had, so this is invalid, and 38:3 is valid, by 38:1. Had he not received it, I would have had to judge it UNSUCCESSFUL, and change 38:3 to invalid by 38:1! Note my method of resolving conflicts between two rules. It would have been consistent to rule 38:3 invalid and this conditionally valid, but I shall give the earlier rule precedence as I consider it becomes valid as soon as the next rule is posted. Style points: A nice try to get a classic paradox working. I'm glad it didn't work as I would have had a headache trying to work out whether it was contradictory or whether I could have chosen an X. 0.5 for the rule and 0.5 for brevity. (NB My new scoring scheme seems to be having the desired effect so far!) ===== Rule 38:5 (Peter) Mo-12-Jun-95 16:33 INVALID (+3 SP) >>>>> *ALL* messages posted to the FRC mailing list from eligible players shall be considered to be fantasy rule submissions and be judged accordingly. >>>>> Initial judgement: No problem. (Though see 38:6). Style points: I'm not sure whether this will stifle discussion, keep discussion short, or make enough invalid rules that 38:1 doesn't kill the game. Well, we shall see, but it certainly deserves maximum style points for sheer audacity! Later judgement: See under 38:16. PS: Sorry Peter, you were just too late to win the Python competition, but I give you 0.5 consolation SPs as you hadn't seen that it had already been answered when you posted. ===== Rule 38:6 (Dave) Mo-12-Jun-95 16:22 INVALID (-0.5 SP) ***** Rule 38:4 >>>>>> No future rule shall be VALID unless, at the time of its posting, the rule immediately preceding it has been judged INVALID. For the purposes of this rule, CONDITIONALY VALID rules shall be deemed VALID. >>>>>> Dave Honsinger ***** Judgement: I nearly ruled this one unsuccessful (it was posted before 38:5, assuming both players' clocks are right, but arrived after) and made 38:5 thus invalid by 38:1; but I didn't for the following reason. I had already ruled 38:5 conditionally valid. I said that conditionally valid rules would become valid as soon as the next rule was posted. So then the WHOLE of Dave's message is part of 38:6, but as he's numbered it wrongly, it's invalid. (If he had numbered it correctly, it would still have been unsuccessful, and 38:5 invalid. Even if he had put 38:5 it would have been unsuccessful because that would have been the right numbering before 38:5 arrived). Again, the other interpretation would have been consistent, but I choose to rule in favour of the earlier rule, ceteris paribus. Style points: -1, because I don't think this does much more than 38:1. You redeemed 0.5 by being brief though. (At least, it's over my 5 line limit, but that's not your fault!) ===== Rule 38:7 (Storm) Mo-12-Jun-95 17:16 VALID (+1.5 SP) ***** I vote FOR 38:A, with fond memories of a Nomic World round with a similar rule.... Storm mkkuhner@genetics.washington.edu ***** Judgement: No problem, assuming she DOES vote for 38:A; so I'd better count her vote. Style points: Definitely 1SP for being (AFAIK) the first player ever to enter an frc round entirely unintentionally, and 0.5 for keeping it under 5 lines even with the signature! (Yes, signatures are part of the length if they are part of the rule). ===== Rule 38:8 (The Wizard) Mo-12-Jun-95 19:03 INVALID (-1 SP) ***** Dave writes: >Rule 38:4 According to my count this is already the fifth rule. Bill's secret integer Rule was the fourth, although he called it 38:3. Ronald ***** Judgement: All true. It was the sixth in my mailbox, but I'm prepared to believe your count made it the fifth. However, your rule's invalid because (i) 38:7 is valid, and by 38:1...; (ii) you called yourself 'Ronald'. Style points: No adjustment for length as you probably didn't know you were submitting a rule! However, -1 for getting your name wrong. I've always thought players should respect the R.O.s even outside rules (yes, even if you don't like that R.O.) and now I have a chance to reflect that in style points. ===== Rule 38:9 (Vanyel) Tu-13-Jun-95 03:43 INVALID (2 SP) ***** In the future, Rules posted before the end of the vote on Proposal 38:A is Invalid unless it contains the statement "I Vote FOR 38:A." Rules posted after this time must contain a vote on a Proposal. ***** Judgement: Would have been conditionally valid, but is invalid by 38:1 because 38:10 is unsuccessful, not invalid. Got that? Style points: I think Vanyel is correct to exploit the relationship between rules and other postings that 38:5 has created, and to try and bring proposals in as part of the game again. I only give 1.5 points, because I'm worried it could get a bit cumbersome, people voting on proposals several times, people creating no-hope proposals for no reason other than to get a rule in. Plus 0.5 for brevity, of course. ===== Rule 38:10 (Dug) Tu-13-Jun-95 03:46 UNSUCCESSFUL (-2 SP) ***** *Subject: 38:A - FOR Sounds fun to me! -Dug -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Douglas R. Steen "Internet for Teachers, by Teachers" Seattle, WA ** coming this fall ** http://www.halcyon.com/ResPress/teacher.htm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Comment: Note that I've included the subject because it was obviously part of the message. Usually I won't. Judgement: Would have been valid except for 38:9 just beating it into my mailbox by 1'19". So it's unsuccessful. Style points: Appears not to have read 38:5, or at least not my judgement on it. Not phrased as a rule, and is too long. Another comment: If votes appear in fantasy rules, I shall only count them if that rule is valid. (Other rules don't exist, or don't exist yet if they're conditionally valid). Don't worry, however, there may be ways to vote that don't involve submitting a fantasy rule; you've got nearly 2 days to find them. ===== Rule 38:11 (Andre) Tu-13-Jun-95 13:17 INVALID (-2.5 SP) ***** If a Rule leads to a Paradox, by being neither valid, nor invalid, nor anything else which might be judged, the Judge looks at which Rules are, in his opinion, the cause of the Paradox. The Rule itself is only a cause if it actively helps creating the situation that makes it lead to a Paradox. Then he looks at the last of these Rules, called the 'last cause', and the paradoxical Rule is judged as such: The Rule is declared 'INVALID'. If the last cause is by another Player than the Player who posted the Rule leading to the Paradox, all (both past and future) Rules after that one are declared 'INVALID'. Andre ***** Judgement: Well, I give it the benefit of the doubt, because I don't think the situation can arise. If a rule leads to such a paradox, it is already invalid. However, this rule is INVALID because 38:12 is unsuccessful; see below. Style points: Several things wrong with this. It's very unclear what it all means. The last paragraph is very suspect because it might suggest invalidating rules that have already timed out. I give it -2 for those things, and -0.5 for lack of brevity. ===== Rule 38:12 (Dave) Tu-13-Jun-95 13:10 UNSUCCESSFUL (-1 SP) ***** If this rule is VALID, all future rules are INVALID. If this rule is INVALID, all future rules must be VALID. Dave Honsinger ***** Judgement: Would have been valid, but for the fact that it arrived after 38:11; so another invalid/unsuccessful pair. (A gap of 1'51" this time!) Style points: Vanyel is correct that it doesn't matter what would happen if this rule were invalid, so SPs taken off for that. Also, if I had ruled it valid, it would have been rather a boring way to try and win, akin to saying 'this is the last valid rule'. It would have been harder to overrule because 38:3 would have had to have been overruled too, but even so. I give it -1.5, +0.5 for brevity. ===== Rule 38:13 (Vanyel) Tu-13-Jun-95 14:40 VALID (-0.5 SP) ***** Prior rules have specified how a rule is considered and judged; future rules shall specify how a rule is written. They must make requirements which prior valid rules do not follow. ***** Judgement: Fine. Style points: I give this -1 because although it's a nice idea (the converse of 37:2, in a way) I think it's rather sloppily phrased; of which more in future if required. +0.5 for brevity. ===== Rule 38:14 (Sagitta) Tu-13-Jun-95 15:28 INVALID (+1 SP) ***** >>>> No future rule will be valid if the Judge feels it is more restrictive than this one. Sagitta (who votes FOR 38:A) ***** Judgement: I was about to rule this UNSUCCESSFUL (and 38:13 INVALID) but when I checked the timestamps I came to the conclusion that Sagitta should have got 38:13 by the time of posting 38:14, so I rule it INVALID (38:13 is valid, so this is invalid by 38:1). Style points: It's an interesting concept, but I think it's too subjective to be really interesting. 1 SP for the idea. I don't give the usual half-point for brevity because of all the blank lines at the bottom, but I won't subtract any points either. ===== Rule 38:15 (Dave) Tu-13-Jun-95 17:57 VALID (0.5 SP) ***** Future rules must not contain the words on the next line: rule, rules, future, valid, next, invalid, not Dave Honsinger ***** Judgement: No problem. Style points: Overkill; 'rule' and 'rules' would have done it. Also, synonyms shouldn't be too hard to find. Also, it's more stylish to obey your own rule (at least you could have obeyed it on the first line). Also, we're getting further and further away from the theme. Having said all that it's a reasonable idea, and might just catch some people out, and I think the positive and negative just about balance out. So just the usual 0.5.... ===== Rule 38:16 (Oerjan) Tu-13-Jun-95 18:17 INVALID (1.1 SP) ***** Future Rules must break all previous Rules. ***** Judgement: ...and thus become invalid one way or another. It's invalid because 38:15 is valid, but I'm not sure whether I would have allowed it anyway. Isn't it inconsistent to say rules have to break 38:5 & 38:7; what would that mean? Style points: Well, getting back to the paradoxes, but I think it's rather too unsubtle. 0.5 for effort/amusement, and 0.6 (!) for being extra brief. ===== Rule 38:5 revisited; revised judgement at We-14-Jun-95 09:12 Oerjan wrote: -> I also am rather fed up with this erroneous idea that a FR can decide=20 -> what is and isn't a FR, or what is and isn't a Vote. -> I therefore call for an overrule for Rule 38:7, as a clarification. -> [...] -> (These morons are turning frc into an ordinary nomic! Phew!) I have to admit, I think Oerjan is right. I made a mistake in judging 38:5 valid. F.R.s just can't have that much power: "Fantasy rules shall have no effect on play except as provided for in the regular ordinances." (R.O.1) I shall therefore change my judgement on 38:5 to invalid, with apologies to the committee. I think it is best if the rules since then stay as they are in terms of validity; although some of them might have changed, later rules assumed which were valid etc. so it makes a nonsense to change them all this much later. I shall, however, count all votes cast for 38:A, however they were cast. I shall assume Oerjan no longer wishes to propose his overrule, unless he states to the contrary. I hope all this is now acceptable to the committee. ===== Rule 38:17 (Oerjan) Tu-13-Jun-95 18:35 VALID (1 SP) ***** 38:17 Messages with prime numbers after this one contain nothing of validity. ***** Judgement: No problem. I don't think it does contain the word 'valid'. It contains the string 'valid', but the word 'validity'. Style points: 1 for obeying 38:13 and 38:15 quite neatly, +0.5 of course. ===== Rule 38:18 (Jeremy) Tu-13-Jun-95 19:01 INVALID (1.5 SP) ***** 38:17 should be invalid because the word validity contains "valid" (and nothing contains "not"). If the Judge disagrees, then this is invalid because of the prime, for using the forbidden words and for what's coming next... which is what I want anyway. "Oh no, I said it again!" <-- Another name that Python reference contest? ***** Judgement: At the time this (and the next rule) were written, 38:5 was still valid. This was clearly intended to be a rule, and I accept it as such. It's intentionally invalid, of course. Style points: I wondered when someone was going to submit a deliberately invalid rule so that 38:1 didn't cause them trouble. 1 SP for that. ===== Rule 38:19 (Jeremy) Tu-13-Jun-95 19:05 INVALID (1 SP) ***** >From now on don't include votes. I propose that the final line of the third ___ R.O. be changed to read "The Judge is always eligible" for the / \ duration of this round. MD-< 0 >-MD \___/ <--- a bad but thematic chemistry pun. Be thematic somehow. ***** Judgement: 19 is prime. As far as I can tell from 38:18 and 38:19, Jeremy seems to understand 38:17 differently from me. I think it refers to the numbering of the rules, not numbers within the rules (perhaps both, actually). Style points: The pun is dreadful, but +0.5 for trying. Note: I accept this proposal because that was my policy at the time this rule was submitted. I vote against it though. ===== Rule 38:20 (Sagitta) We-14-Jun-95 03:51 INVALID (-1.5 SP) ***** There must be no restrictions concerned with fungi. Sagitta ***** Judgement: Breaks 38:13; no previous rules have had restrictions on fungi. Style points: What were you on when you wrote this? Is this what happens at Oxford, in exam term, in the middle of the night? Yes, I have included the +0.5 for brevity. ===== Rule 38:21 (The Wizard) We-14-Jun-95 14:36 VALID (-0.5 SP) ***** Aucune regle sera en Anglais dans l'avenir. Mais...traduction obligatoire! ***** Translation: No Rule shall be in English in the future. But...translation obligatory! Judgement: Fine. Style points: A clever way round 38:15, but not a particularly interesting, in fact rather a hackneyed, restriction. I rate it at -1. ===== Rule 38:22 (Oerjan) We-14-Jun-95 16:37 INVALID (-1.5 SP) ***** 'Irned magyarul. ***** Judgement: 38:21 is valid, so invalid by 38:1. Style points: Having wasted time getting a MIME compatible mailer and still not being able to read =CD (I'm working on it...), I'm not very kindly disposed towards this rule. ===== Rule 38:23 (Vanyel) We-14-Jun-95 18:14 INVALID (1 SP) ***** Alle Regeln mussen einen moeglichen Widerspruch haben--ein Wort oder Klausel, dass koennte zwei (oder mehr!) Auslegung haben. ***** Translation: All rules must have a potential contradiction--a word or clause that could have two or more interpretations. Judgement: You need "in Zukunft" or "von nun an" or something to make it apply only to future rules. Style points: Well, it makes an attempt to be thematic, albeit in a rather weak way. Also, it could be quite difficult to do in a foreign language. On the negative side, shouldn't the plural of "Auslegung" be "Auslegungen"? I give it 0.5, and double your money for being brief. ===== Rule 38:24 (Jeremy) Th-15-Jun-95 15:41 INVALID (1 SP) ***** Eachay uturefay alidvay uleray ustmay ebay oremay argelay anday oremay allsmay anthay ethay oneay ecedingpray itay. Traduction de latin cochon: Chaque future regle valide devrait etre plus grande et plus petite que le chose qui la precede. ***** Judgement: Breaks 38:15 by including the word 'future'. Style points: Translating into non-English is quite clever, though I hope not everyone does it, or at least that they include an English translation too! Does 'future' really go before the noun in French? ===== Rule 38:25 (Jeremy) Th-15-Jun-95 18:46 INVALID (-2 SP) ***** Eachay uturefay uleray alidvay ustmay ebay oremay argelay anday oremay allsmay anthay ethay oneay ecedingpray itay. Traduction de latin cochon: Chaque futur regle valide devrait etre plus grande et plus petite que le chose qui la precede. ***** Judgement: Jeremy has pointed out that there are many ways in which a rule could be larger or smaller than another. Indeed there are, but we only need two to invalidate this rule. It is a remarkable fact that each valid rule so far is larger across the page and smaller down, or vice versa, than the one preceding it. So this breaks 38:13 by specifying a criterion which all valid rules (except possibly 38:1) already follow. Style points: Submitting the same rule again is weak in itself. Furthermore, you haven't put 'futur' after the noun, and you have swapped 'uleray' and 'alidvay' back after I kindly let you swap them last time. New points I have noticed: 'chose' is feminine not masculine in French, and it's not a very good translation anyway; you don't mean the 'thing' that precedes it, but the previous valid rule; my French is rusty, but I think "que cela qui la precede" is what you want. Also regle is feminine, so it really should be 'future' not 'futur'. I rate this at -2.5, with +0.5 redeemed for brevity. ===== Rule 38:26 (Oerjan) Th-15-Jun-95 20:06 INVALID (0 SP) ***** What did that mean? ***** Judgement: What can I say? Style points: 0.5 deducted for assuming 38:25 was valid. ===== Rule 38:27 (Oerjan) Th-15-Jun-95 20:06 VALID (1.5 SP) ***** M'ra ti qol ti /brikh \mathringpug elgou. ***** Translation: We will not see a future valid Rule without a chain-story-part. Actually, a "thring" is a story or part of a story composed by several authors sequentially (usually while sitting around the camp fire) Judgement: No problem. Style points: Amusing, but too vague to have any real force. 1SP for writing in Val$ar, plus the usual 0.5. ===== Rule 38:28 (Vanyel) Sa-17-Jun-95 09:49 INVALID (1 SP) ***** I decided, since this Rule was fated to be invalid anyway, to make it invalid in as many ways as possible. It's invalid by 38:1, 38:13, 38:15, 38:17, 38:21, and 38:27. :) I'd invalidate it more, but I couldn't figure out how to violate 3 and 7... ***** Judgement: What can I say? Style points: Yeah, I suppose that deserves half a point! ===== Rule 38:29 (Vanyel) Sa-17-Jun-95 09:49 INVALID (2 SP) ***** ra'meychaj pabbe'nis chutmeychu' qIbDaq tiQ Hop... ***** Translation: Future rules must not follow their own restrictions. Judgement: 29 is prime (see 38:17). Counting problems, I think. I'm sorry I didn't have time to judge this before your eligibility ran out, but I can't be at my terminal all the time. Style points: 1 for choosing to write in Klingon (assuming it's accurate), 0.5 for the rule itself, and 0.5 for brevity. ===== Rule 38:30 (Dave) Mo-19-Jun-95 14:19 INVALID (1 SP) ***** Die Kettengeschichteteilen mussen vom Ende der Geschichte anfangen, und rueckwaerts bis zum Anfang der Geschichte weitergehen. Kettengeschichteteil: Und wenn sie nicht gestorben sind, dann leben sie noch heute. ***** Translation: The chain-story-parts must begin at the end of the story and proceed backwards to the beginning of the story. Chain-story-part: And they lived happily ever after. Judgement: Invalid by 38:3. Style points: This doesn't seem to be very restrictive, but 'Kettengeschichteteilen' is such a lovely word. ===== Rule 38:31 (Oerjan) Mo-19-Jun-95 15:36 INVALID (1 SP) ***** Hver kjedehistoriedel heretter maa beskrive en persons doed. Del: Og saa falt heksas romskip inn i det sorte hullet. ***** Translation: Every chain story part from now must describe the death of a person. Part: And then the spaceship of the witch fell into the black hole. Judgement: Invalid by 38:3 and 38:17, but you know that. Style points: 0.5 for a nice story part, plus 0.5 for brevity. ===== Rule 38:32 (Oerjan) Mo-19-Jun-95 16:47 INVALID (3 SP) ***** Ugh ugh ugh ugh ugh ugh ugh ugh ugh. "Ugh ugh Leia ugh uuuuuuuugh ugh ugh ugh ugh ugh UGH!" ***** Translation: Every future part must mention a weapon. "Then princess Leia saved the universe (the big one) by killing herself with the light saber (ugh!)." Judgement: 38:3. Style points: I take it that's Wookie-speak. That's undoubtedly stylish, as is handing the game to someone who never even realised she was playing. ===== Rule 38:33 (Oerjan) Mo-19-Jun-95 17:24 INVALID (1 SP) ***** Futurae regulae non exsunt. "'Necesse est sacrificium hominum, sic sole vincatis,' risit hexis, turnanda solem ad aquam a seum wandum terribilis." ***** Translation: Future rules don't exist. '"You have to make a human sacrifice if you want to win," the witch laughed, turning Solo into water with her terrible wand.' Judgement: 38:3. Style points: Certainly paradoxical. I'm not sure about the Latin, but mine is too rusty to criticise it. ===== Rule 38:34 (Oerjan) Mo-19-Jun-95 17:24 INVALID (1.5 SP) ***** ***** Judgement: Style points: Paradoxical, and a good length. ===== -- Stephen R. E. Turner Stochastic Networks Group, Statistical Laboratory, University of Cambridge e-mail: sret1@cam.ac.uk WWW: http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/~sret1/home.html "10 or 11 degrees C in the south: that's double figures" (ITV Weathercaster)