DIS: Re: OFF: [FRC] Tournament Update

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Not an argument: Your Honor, I believe that My Fellow Counselor Aris
violated FRC-6, by failing to reference The Most Heroic Peter Suber
with the appropriate style.On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 8:28 PM Kerim Aydin
<ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> FRC (Birthday) Tournament Update
>
>
> The ELIMINATION PERIOD begins in just over 18 hours.
>
>
> GAME START           5 Jul 2018 18:52:15 UTC
> ENTRIES CLOSED       9 Jul 2018 18:52:15 UTC
> ELIMINATION BEGINS  11 Jul 2018 18:52:15 UTC
>
> STRIKES:  V.J. Rada(1)
>
> ELIMINATION CLOCK
> (Valid rule extends clock 48 hours for submitter and 24 hours for everyone
> still in the tournament).
>
> Aris        12 Jul 2018 04:29:46 UTC
> PSS         11 Jul 2018 18:52:15 UTC
> Corona      11 Jul 2018 18:52:15 UTC
> V.J. Rada   11 Jul 2018 18:52:15 UTC
>
>
> SUBMITTED FANTASY RULES
>
>
> #1 Aris 5 Jul 2018 12:01:09 -0700
> (PROCEDURAL)
> My friends and colleagues, now that we are before the court, the honorable
> G. presiding, I think we should maintain some decorum. I propose the
> following rule, to maintain order in the court: all rules and
> pronouncements we see, in the form of arguments shall be.
>
> THE JUDGE RULES
> Please all be seated.  The Court recognizes Counsellor Aris's Rule as
> having VALID standing.  While the Court approves of the decorum imposed by
> this rule and raises an eyebrow of amusement at the rhyming couplet, the
> Court also imposes a tenth of a point penalty to remind Counsellor Aris of
> the importance of clear grammar before this court.
> Style +0.9.
>
>
> #2 V.J. Rada 6 Jul 2018 09:54:51 +1000
> (DOCKET 1)
> I humbly submit this rule and argument to the Court: With respect, for
> multiple reasons, this court should rule that Agora is the best game of all
> time, and future rules should address this proposition.
>
> THE JUDGE RULES
> Counsellor V.J. Rada's standing and rule are recognized as VALID.  Further,
> Counsellor V.J. Rada's phrasing at the question before the Court marks em
> as an advocate for Agora, consistency of position will be expected as a
> future style determinant.
> Style +1.0.
>
>
> #3 Aris 5 Jul 2018 23:46:01 -0700
> (DOCKET 1)
> I humbly submit that while future arguments should address the stated
> proposition, they may do so by attempting to either refute or support it.
> After all, the court can't really do its job without arguments on both
> sides of the issue. There is a reasonable argument that since FRC is an
> older game, originating during the existence Nomic World itself, it has a
> better claim to greatness.
>
> THE JUDGE RULES
> The Court finds this VALID and marks Counsellor Aris as an opposing
> Council to Agora.
> Style +1.0.
>
>
> #4 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 6 Jul 2018 10:57:31 -0400
> (PROCEDURAL)
> I hereby submit this rule and argument to the Court, on the PROCEDURAL
> docket: Recommendations in arguments for the court to rule in a
> certain manner are not binding to the court. For the good of the game,
> the court ought to recognize "should" as creating a recommendation not
> a binding obligation. Finally, the court is reminded that multiple
> dockets may be open at once and arguments SHALL be sorted by docket by
> the submitter or as being PROCEDURAL. Arguments need only be
> consistent with other arguments of eir docket and those arguments
> deemed PROCEDURAL, so as to ensure that multiple issues are addressed
> simultaneously, The court is asked to recognize FRC-1 as PROCEDURAL.
> The court is asked to recognize the later arguments of V.J. Rada and
> Aris as being on Docket #1. The Honorable Judge G. CAN and MAY
> reclassify rules across dockets, if its original placement was with
> arguments on a different issue. Arguments may be placed on multiple
> dockets, if they pertain to multiple issues. If a new issue arises on
> a docket, all arguments pertaining to that issue SHOULD be put on a
> new docket, while remaining on the previous docket.
>
> THE JUDGE RULES.
> Counsellor Publius Scribonius Scholasticus presents a VALID argument to
> the Court.  This Court notes that the VALIDITY against previous rules only
> comes from defining SHOULD as used in previous arguments, such that e
> avoids addressing the actual proposition, which strikes the Court as
> Being Sneaky.  While the Court recognizes the that this passes logical
> muster, a loss of style is recorded.  The Court notes the distinction
> between PROCEDURAL and other Dockets going forward and appreciates the
> procedural distinction; however, to limit digressions, Consellors are
> recommended (for now) to keep their arguments in either PROCEDURAL or
> Docket #1 to avoid style losses.  Finally, the Counsellor's rule seeks to
> bind the Court (with reclassification rules) which oversteps the bounds of
> eir position - watch it, Counsellor.
> STYLE:  1.0 (base) - 0.5 (Should redefinition) + 1.0 (Docket concept)
>        -1.0 (binding the judge) = 0.5
>
>
> #5 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 7 Jul 2018 19:34:47 -0400
> (PROCEDURAL)
> In the interest of bringing all evidence and opinions to the discussion,
> Acknowledging the burden of maintaining Counselorship,
> I request that the court allow Strangers (defined, in these rules as
> non-Counselors) to submit evidence and opinions to the court. Such
> evidence or opinions should be analysed by all counselors in the
> production of their further arguments.
>
> THE JUDGE RULES
> Counsellor, this is VALID.  However, what makes you think there are
> *any* non-counsellors in this courtroom?
> Style:  1.0
>
>
> #6 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 7 Jul 2018 19:54:14 -0400
> (PROCEDURAL)
> In the interest of maintaining decorum, as required by FRC-1, I ask
> that the court require all Counselors and strangers to address each
> other with the deserved respect. Thus, all Counselors SHALL address
> each other in arguments, as My Fellow Counselor. The Right Honourable
> Judge G. SHALL be referred to as such, by all Counselors in all
> arguments. Holders of Nomic degrees who are Strangers higher than an
> Associate of Nomic SHALL be addressed, by all Counselors in all
> arguments, as The Learned for a Bachelor of Nomic, The Right Learned
> for a Master of Nomic, or The Most Learned for any Doctorate of Nomic.
> Holders of the patent title, "Champion", who are Strangers SHALL be
> addressed, by all Counselors in all arguments, as The Victorious.
> Holders of any Heroic patent title who are Strangers SHALL be
> addressed, by all Counselors in all arguments, as The Heroic, or if a
> Hero of Agora, the Right Heroic, or if a Grand Hero of Agora, the Most
> Heroic. Any current officers of Agora who are Strangers SHALL be
> addressed, by all Counselors in all arguments, as The Honourable. Any
> current or former Distributor of Agora SHALL be addressed, by all
> Counselors in all arguments, as The Right Honourable. I hope that
> these rules of Decorum should please the court.
>
> THE JUDGE RULES
> VALID.  We've heard from you a considerable amount, Counsellor.  Please
> take a seat until someone else has had a chance to speak.
> STYLE:  0.0
>
> OOC Comment
> In the Original FRC, Style "wins" award a very minor boon, so repeated
> entries to increase style aren't really a thing.  Here, since a style
> win is equivalent to a validity win, repeated entries for style is a
> bit of a loophole.  TO COUNTERACT THAT, from henceforth, the *maximum*
> Style I will award any "in a row" VALID entries from one person will
> be 0. (does not apply if you're following up after an INVALID entry).
>
>
> #7 Corona 9 Jul 2018 11:43:52 -0700
> (PROCEDURAL)
> I submit the following PROCEDURAL argument to the Court: that all of My
> Fellow Counsellors SHALL in their arguments include at least one word with
> a wildly non-standard 5pe11ink, such as the one in this sentence. This is
> necessary, as it allows to more easily differentiate between My Fellow
> Counsellors' styles.
>
> THE JUDGE RULES
> Counsellor, I am forced to grudgingly accept this entry as VALID.  However,
> I gave full warning to Consellor Aris concerning grammar, at the beginning
> of these proceedings.  Therefore I would remind all attending that this is
> a Court of Law, that we do not speak 'l33t' or 'h4x0r' speak as the kids
> are calling it these days, and it's imposition on the court, now
> unfortunately required, is an anathema to civilisation as we know it.
> STYLE: -0.5.
>
> Further, that's quite enough PROCEDURE for this court, for the moment.
> Until further notice (until balance is achieved), arguments applied to
> Docket #1 will have a baseline Style 1.0 higher than for procedural
> arguments.
>
>
> INVALID #8 V.J. Rada 10 Jul 2018 08:41:49 -0700
> (DOCKET 1)
> 4g0r4 is the best game of all time for six reasons which I will outline for
> you.
> -The internet nomic is the best form of game in the world because of its
> variance and flexibility.
> -Agora is far older than all other internet nomics such as the FRC.
> -Agora is far more in line with the initial Suberian intent than other
> "nomics" including FRC and Blognomic
> -Agora has an excellent and dedicated playerbase.
> -Agora is superior to all board games because it is itself, currently a
> board game.
>
> THE JUDGE RULES
> This is INVALID As per #6:  "for you" doesn't address anyone with "deserved
> respect" (while #6 doesn't supply every grammatically appropriate address
> in the explicit list of titles, the first clause makes it clear that all
> forms of address need similar levels of respect - "you" needs to be "your
> honor" or "the court" or similar).
> (no style)
>
> #9 Aris 9 Jul 2018 21:29:46 -0700
> Eff-arr-quee should be considered vastly superior to all other games.
> I will refute the arguments of My Fellow Counselor, V.J. Rada, on this
> matter.
> -Eff-arr-quee is as theoretically flexible as Agora, but has settled
> into a more stable game structure. It has regular rounds, which
> prevents the problems Agora routinely has with bad economies and the
> like.
> -Eff-arr-quee is older than Agora, as it originated while Nomic World
> still existed. My Fellow Counselor is well, cough, mistaken on this
> point. Obviously, since Agora came into existence after Nomic World, a
> fact recorded in the Agoran ruleset, it is younger than Eff-arr-quee.
> -The original Suberian intent was to allow the game to be whatever the
> players wanted. To quote Suber "The substantive portion of the game is
> deliberately simple so that the players can decide, through
> rule-changes, what kind of game they want to play." [1]
> -Agora's playerbase, while no doubt excellent, is not so dedicated as
> My Fellow Counselor believes. Note, for instance, that the office of
> Rulekeepor is currently vacant, and that there are often vacancies in
> such critical offices.
> -By My Fellow Counselor's logic, all other board games, being
> themselves board games, must be superior to Agora.
>
> THE JUDGE RULES
> VALID, and a set of intriguing arguments that would take some refuting
> Counsellor.  Style +2.0.
>
>
>
>
>