[s-b] Judgement on RFJ 5.

["Mark Walsh" <flutesultan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Judgement on RFJ 5.

First let me say that I, like Personman, have a problem with some of the
wording in Rule 2-5. It's a fair starting point. but I think some of the
subsections of the Rule could be combined. Changing the state of the RFJ to
Invalid is really rendering a judgement of Moot (as it was called in the
second ERA). Also I think the ACCEPTING and STEPPING DOWN actions could be
combined under a single subsection. I also agree that posting to a public
forum is preferable to "changing the state" of the RFJ. 

That said, I'll address an item from bd's post, which included the RFJ,
which I find contrary.
bd wrote:
> One could say that the imperative form implies that the player is 
> permitted to do so. However, I agree that this is somewhat nonsensical - 
> rules should never use the imperative form.

I, personally, can't see Rules being in any other mood than the Imperative.
They're certainly not indicative or subjunctive. bd's first sentence above
seems to say that following the Rules is optional, and at the discretion of
the Players. I believe this is a risky convention to establish. Rule 1-4's
first statement is:
{{
A Player is an Outsider who consents to be governed by the rules, .....
}}
Poor or improper wording of a Rule may make this impossible, but, IMHO,
every effort should be made to assure that the Rules are abided by, where
possible.

Lastly, before rendering judgement, I'll state that I parsed the current
ruleset for the auxiliary verbs 'will', 'shall', and 'must'. I also parsed
for the adverb 'automatically'.

As to 'will':
applicable definition: aux. v. used to indicate requirement or command.

With the exception of a comment in Rule 2-1, it appear exclusively in Rule
0. Its future tense connotation is indicative of the fact that the
circumstances covered by the rule are to be expected, and that by following
the imperative process outlined therein,  some sense of order can be
maintained in a situation that has devolved into chaos. The consequence of
not following this Rule is, quite probably, even greater chaos.

As to 'must':
applicable definition: aux. v. to be obliged or required by morality, law,
or custom.

With the exception of a comment in Rule 2-3, 'must' is used in Rules 1-4,
1-10, and 1-11 to mandate requirements for specific Actions allowable by
those Rules. The consequence of not following these Rules is that the
Actions may be deemed NOT IAW the Rules and disallowed. 'must' also appears
in Rule 1-14, and sets guidelines for defining an attribute. Again,
dissallowance is the penalty for not following the Rule.

As to 'shall':
applicable definition: aux. v. used before a verb in the infinitive to show
order, promise, requirement, or obligation.

In Rule 0 and Rule 2-1, 'shall' is used in conjunction variously with the
word 'mean' to impose a specific definition of previously stated terms. In
Rule 2-2, it is used to establish an initial delimiter for Proposal numbers.
Enter Rule 2-5. 'shall' is used throughout this Rule to govern the very
process in which I am now engaged. As I stated above, I find its usage here
problematic. I actually changed the Catagory label of RFJ 5 to Accepted,
but does this change its state? What if I don't know how to change the
state of an RFJ? The mechanics of that Action are not defined, except by
the convention of posting to a Public Furum. 

Now, as to 'automatically':
There are numerous definitions that apply, but I believe that even though
said automation remains invisible to the Players, our revered Adimnistrator
is actually manually making the changes (and not by virtue of some secret
technology that only e posesses. Until scripts are developed by whatever
braintrust, the use of the word automatic is misleading and,  IMHO,
improper.

So, to Judgement:

bd submits (to discuss BTW):
I submit the following RFJ:
{{
__Ordering operations__
 
If a Rule specifies that a player shall or must perform some game 
action, without a condition indicating the consequences should they not 
perform that game action, said player is considered to automatically 
perform the game action in question, without need for them to 
acknowledge or state that fact.
 
Reasoning: Since the rules have control over only the gamestate, 'shall' 
forms cannot actually cause an External Force to perform some action 
outside the game. However, Outsiders are within the gamestate, and thus 
the rules can cause them to take action - even if the external force 
does nothing.
}}

I'll offer my evaluation on each statement in the above submission (not
necessarily in the order they occur):

> Since the rules have control over only the 
> gamestate, 'shall' forms cannot actually cause 
> an External Force to perform some action 
> outside the game. 
Agreed. So stated in Rule 1-3.

> However, Outsiders are within the gamestate, and
> thus the rules can cause them to take action - even
> if the external force does nothing.
Agreed. So stated in Rule 1-10 (end of first PP).

> If a Rule specifies that a player shall or must perform
> some game action, without a condition indicating the
> consequences should they not perform that game
> action, .....
Here a condition has been introduced, without Rule or precedent to justify
its validity. Why should the lack of a consequence invalidate the effect or
mandate of a Rule? If no mechanism by which compliance with a Rule can be
achieved exists, then the problem is with the verbiage the Rule (as I judge
the case to be here). Posting to a Public Forum is the required Action per
Rule 1-10 (and has at least in my experience) always been the convention.
The fact that Rule 2-5 does not cite this mechanism as the means by which
to ACCEPT or STEP DOWN or whatever, does not justify me ruling that that
Action will just happen 'automatically' (and, again, I'll state that I take
umbrage with the term). By creating a precedent here by which improperly
worded rules can have their effects imposed by lack of action sanctions all
manner of subversion of the requirement of having and abiding by a ruleset.
The Rules ARE the game! My opinion is that a Rule should state what may be
done and cite a Rule stating how it may be done.IAW the Rules, or else
state the methodology itself. If something is to take place automatically,
that automation should be specifically expressed in a Rule, not imposed by
precedent as the result of an RFJ.

I Render Judgement of FALSE.

Triller

_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business