From: Joshua (j3b4_at_yahoo.com)
Date: Wed Aug 28 2002 - 07:16:21 PDT
--- Gallivanting Tripper <tripper_at_zad.att.ne.jp> wrote:
> From: G. Tripper, Missing Identity Clerk
> To: All FRC Legal Counsel
> Re: Masquerade
>
> Fellow Members:
>
> A disturbing thought has crossed my mind.
>
> The Judge may be plotting to take control of next round, by
> masquerading as
> one of us. This plan is so simple and yet so effective, he might
> have got
> away with it if it weren't for us meddling kids!
>
> The premise is simple: He walks among us, under the assumed name of a
> Member. Assuming that this plan is not already in action, perhaps
> the next
> rule will be posted by a new Member with the pseudonym of "The
> Judge". Such
> a rule could merely exclude all other Members from posting rules,
> (which
> after all is not illegal, only unstylish, and such a coldly rational
> being
> as our Emperor-elect would have no scruples in so posting), and the
> Judge of
> the next round would be the Judge, aka The Judge. Got it so far?
>
> The advantage of this approach is that it requires no Proposals, such
> as
> would have been required by the suggestions of 192:6 and requires no
> accomplices as recommended by 192:2.
>
> The only disadvantage of this approach is that it is could be
> interpreted as
> being in violation of RO 2 "any person can become a member..."
> together with
> RO 5 "[when] there is only one person eligible to play, then ... (c)
> the
> sole remaining player is declared winner of the just ended round and
> becomes
> Judge." and RO 3 "The Judge is not eligible."
>
> However, this can easily be overcome by interpreting the faux pas
> (false
> step) in RO 5 that the Judge can be the sole remaining _player_,
> which term
> is otherwise undefined in the ROs (except for RO 7, which states that
> a
> player can become Wizard) - so the (The) Judge could merely assert
> that "The
> Judge", although not a distinct person from the being with Imperial
> ambitions, is a distinct player, and therefore can assume Judgeship
> by
> posting the last valid rule.
>
> So. Now the conspiracy is unmasked, and I see only one way to
> prevent it.
> Go tell it from the mountain. No future rule in this round may
> explicitly
> prevent any other member, person, or player from posting valid rules.
>
> --
> Rule Date: 2002-08-27 15:09:08 GMT
INVALID
STYLE +3.0 For the first display of loyalty to the judge this round
has seen. The Judge will reward...
O Tripper where art Thou? Finally a committee member willing to
sacrifice eirself for the good of eir judge. This is the level of
loyalty and devotion due to an individual as brilliant and magnanimous
as your judge. For those who may wonder how this brave committee
member pulled off this finnessful offering please take note of VALID
Rule 192:5 which states "each future rule shall include a gratuitous
epic movie reference. "
To throw off my enemies Galivanting included three movie titles but was
careful to make sure that none of them were in fact _epic_ films.
epic (Cambridge International Dictionary of English) : [noun]
a film, poem or book which is long and contains a lot of action,
usually dealing with a historical subject ~ "It's one of those old
Hollywood epics with a cast of thousands."
[adjective] ~an epic film about the Roman Empire
/Epic can also be used of events that happen over a long period and
involve a lot of action and difficulty. ~an epic journey/struggle/
Movie reference one: "Masquerade" to show off his brilliance G.T. chose
a title that refers to not one but FIVE movies, all interesting and
worth watching I'm sure, but none of them epics.
1. Masquerade (1988) Directed by Bob Swaim runs a brief 91 minutes
and features a few characters in a murder mystery, (it's in German by
the way).
2. Masquerade (1965) Directed by Basil Dearden runs for 102 minutes
and come close to epicness but it's cast is rather small. Furthermore
IMDB user lora61 from Canada calls it a spy thriller. " My main reason
for watching is to see Jack Hawkins whom I always admired. There's some
violence of course, and a shootout, but it's to be expected in this
kind of movie. A good show."
3. Masquerade (1931) Directed by Casey Robinson
Runtime: 20 (decidedly un-epic)
4. Masquerade (1929) Directed by Russell Birdwell may have been epic in
length (?) but the cast contained only six characters with names and
five more including first, second, third and fourth reporter.
5. Masquerade (1924) Directed by Dave Fleischer
Genre: Animation / Comedy / Short (more)
Sound Mix: Silent
~short, comedy, silent... epic? nah.
Then to really throw you off the devious trip-taker tossed you this red
herring:
The Judge (1916)
Genre: Comedy
Credited cast overview: Mack Sennett , Charles Murray (I) ,Louise
Fazenda , Phyllis Allen, Harry Booker (I)
Color: Black and White
Sound Mix: Silent
Finally some of the more perceptive council members might have picked
up on Gal's subtle reference to...
"Go Tell it On the Mountain" Directed by Stan Lathan (1984)
Runtime: 96
(The entire book takes place on the fourteenth birthday of John
Grimes...)
Anonymous from New York says, "This film version of James Baldwin's
classic novel seems more like a documentary than a drama. There is
little dramatic tension, and too much time given to peripheral
characters and plotlines to let it really work on an emotional level."
~Right, 96 minutes and the whole story takes place on John's birthday.
Not exactly epic. Oh and it was made for T.V.
______________________________________________________________________
Post your ad for free now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
--
Rule Date: 2002-08-28 14:16:37 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST