Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: RFJ

[Thomas Hirsch <thomas@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> > The Game is a set of elements where in fact all game entities do abide 
> > by all the Rules. By not abiding a Rule, an entity ceases to be 
> > part of The
> > Game.
> 
> It ceases to be part of the game? Which rule defines that?

How would you define the limits of the game? IMO it is basically defined by 
rule 101/0 and a bunch of players who have agreed to follow the rules. 
If I would decide to ignore them, I would be ignored by the other players, 
as playing becomes impossible with me going wild. I may continue playing 
with my rules, but theres no point in doing that, unless at least some 
other players agree with me. 
(see the historical splitpoint of Fat-Acka and Thin-Acka)
Unfortunately there is no distinct transition between trespassing minor 
rules, e.g. by unawareness and negating major parts of the ruleset. The 
former may be handled my fallback rules, as you said, the latter leads to 
chaos.

> But the rules already have a "fallback" for many rules. For example, if you are a judge and don't deliver a judgement, you're breaking a rule, but that is automatically governed by a different rule which tells the OSJ to simple select a different judge.

You're right.

-relet