Round 8

Judge: cloverkitty

 

7.0 deced VALID Each Fantasy Rule contains exactly one not-yet-used sentence from the current Rules of PTwomic, without expressing it in such a way as to make it devoid of effect. 

 

By 'the current Rules of PTwomic', I mean the texts of the Rules that are, at the time that the Fantasy Rule is posted, considered to be in effect by posters in the PTwomic Thread (http://doctorwhoforum.com/showthread.php?t=185068). 

 

Any Rules or parts thereof about which there is explicit and unresolved controversy in the PTwomic Thread do not count as current Rules of PTwomic. 

 

Likewise, any changes to the Rules that have not been explicitly acknowledged in the PTwomic Thread do not count for the purposes of this definition. 

 

Furthermore, each Fantasy Rule contains a statement for Judgment, enclosed within quotation marks, thus: "This Fantasy Rule's effects are not what their author intended." 

 

Where there exists at the time of submission a statement for Judgment in a valid Fantasy Rule that has not been judged, each Fantasy Rule provides a Judgment on such a statement. The Judgment is enclosed within '[ judge ] [ /judge ]' tags, and gives a verdict in the form of a monologue or conversation, depending on the number of 'Players' that are called for, for the 'panel'. The Players are given names, and each deliver a verdict of 'true', 'false' or 'undecidable'.

 

If the statement challenges the legality or correctness of a Judgment, it's considered by a panel of Judges (twice as many Players as considered the challenged Judgment, or all Players, whichever's fewer). 'All Players' is equivalent to the number of Members of aPTomic.

 

7.1 themink VALID Each FR has a style that's either 'Pure' or 'Impure'. Unless otherwise specified, its style is 'Pure'. An FR with 'Pure' style is interpreted in the usual manner. An FR with 'Impure' style is interpreted as changing meaning with each alternate FR in the round: its restrictions are interpreted literally when an odd-numbered FR is being proposed; however, its restrictions (not including the fact that it's 'Impure') are interpreted as things not to be obeyed when an even-numbered FR is being proposed. (In other words, an even-numbered FR must beinconsistent with what is stated in the 'Impure' FR, if the 'Impure' FR were 'Pure'.)

 

FRs are numbered starting with 0 for the first proposed FR in the round, and incremented by 1 for each subsequent proposed FR. This numbering system is automatic for the purposes of this FR, and isn't affected by any number included in a proposed FR by the poster.

 

"Beggars can't be choosers."

 

[ judge ]

 

And now it's time for "aPTomic In-Game" with Dave and me, Bob. You may remember us from such shows as "Poems: Postgame" and "The Sonnets Thread Big Postgame Report."

 

 

Those were the same show, Bob.

 

Sure, but they don't know that. Anyhoo, today we'll be analyzing something much more complex than what DWF posters were thinking when they wrote mere lines of a sonnet: we've got to wade through just what the **** was going through deced's head when he wrote this FR!

 

 

Careful with the language Bob, that's how we got fired from that sweet sonnets gig.

 

Oh, please -- we were on our way out ever since you said iambic pentameter was a species of duck.

 

 

Let's just look at deced's post, shall we? And it starts off with trouble, as the phrase "one not-yet-used sentence from the current Rules of PTwomic" seems ambiguous. Does he mean that the sentence hasn't ever come into play during any game of PTWomic, or simply that no one has yet included it in an FR in this round of aPTomic? I think the latter makes more sense, but there's no way to tell for sure.

 

And we'll see that becoming a common theme: there's just no way to tell what deced was thinking. Though the next few lines are pretty clear -- what exactly are and aren't considered to be the rules of PTwomic. But then we come to the next head-scratcher: "a statement for Judgment."

 

 

A... statement... for... Judgment. With a capital "J"! The first in a whole slew of mentions of Judgments and Judges, even though those things already exist in this game! Is he referring to Judge Cloverkitty? She already has enough responsibility as Judge, even though she's busy working...

 

*quotation marks with fingers in air* "Working..."

 

 

...and are these Judgments binding in any respect? Let's continue... "each Fantasy Rule provides a Judgment on such a statement." So can we infer from that that since a Judgment can be in any FR, these Judgments are therefore not restricted to being delivered by Judge Cloverkitty?

 

Unless, possibly, it's violating the RRs by having a capital-J "Judgment" delivered by someone who's not the Judge? Let's see if we can find the answer... "The Judgment is enclosed within '[ judge ] [ /judge ]' tags" *looks up, looks down*...

 

 

And I continue, "and gives a verdict in the form of a monologue or conversation, depending on the number of 'Players' that are called for, for the 'panel'." OK, so clearly deced didn't intend a "Judgment" necessarily to be delivered by a single Judge. Well, let's see exactly how many Judges there should be.

 

"If the statement challenges the legality or correctness of a Judgment, it's considered by a panel of Judges (twice as many Players as considered the challenged Judgment, or all Players, whichever's fewer). 'All Players' is equivalent to the number of Members of aPTomic."

 

 

And if the statement doesn't challenge the legality of a Judgment?

 

Hmmmmmm... yeah... I, uh... once again, who knows what he was thinking? One? Zero?

 

 

And does that capital-J "Judgment" only include these new, playtime, day-at-the-races-with-Uncle-Bobo Judgments, or the real, hardcore Judgments made by a real, hardcore Judge? Aren't those Judgments, if anything is?

 

Umm... well, maybe we should just get down to the business at hand before we get too confused. Now, we have to "[give] a verdict in the form of a monologue or conversation, depending on the number of 'Players' that are called for, for the 'panel'."

 

 

Are we 'Players'? I can't play this game, I had a hard enough time reading a sonnet! How many of us are "called for"?

 

It doesn't say, remember? So, I guess it's just us. Now, it says we're "given names." Do you want to give me a name?

 

 

I thought you were Bob.

 

OK, and you can be Henrietta. So, what's your verdict? The statement is, "This Fantasy Rule's effects are not what their author intended."

 

 

Ha! Who knows what he intended? Why did we have to go through all that?

 

We've got to earn our paychecks somehow. So you say "undecidable"?

 

 

It's as undecidable as they come.

 

And I'll say it's undecidable as well. Time to get back to the game, so it's goodbye from me and from Henrietta, and happy aPTomicking!

 

[ /judge ]

 

7.2 deced VALID Henceforth, the verdict on a statement for Judgment is given as a monologue, in poem form, if the statement doesn't challenge the legality or correctness of a Judgment. The poem must contain at least four lines and one rhyme; or must if three lines be a haiku. Otherwise, it is not considered a poem for the purposes of this description of the nature of such verdicts.

"The Judgment within FR 7.1 was incorrect: It should have been 'true'."

 

[ judge ]

 

Gerald : They say that beggars can't be choosers. Yeah,

But who are 'they'? And who are they to say

That something cannot be? If there's a way

Or two, or three, the beggar is aware

 

Of, she or he may choose to waltz

Down any of them. So it's false.

 

[ /judge ]

 

If an FR does not contain the letter string 'FR', whether in lower case or in capitals, or a combination thereof, it is impure.

 

Winner: deced