Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] Grid movement

[Wonko <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> On 8/13/02 at 9:26 AM Wonko wrote:
> 
>> Quoth Glotmorf,
>> 
>>> I leave the Grid.
>>> 
>>> For the legality of my action, I cite the following sentence from Rule
>> 301:
>>> 
>>> "Once a player is on the Grid, e may only leave the Grid [[e.g. change
>> his
>>> status to "off the Grid"]] or move to other units on the Grid in a manner
>>> prescribed by the rules."
>>> 
>>> It is my opinion that this sentence can be interpreted to mean, "Once a
>> player
>>> is on the Grid, e may only (leave the Grid) or (move to other units on
>> the
>>> Grid in a manner prescribed by the rules)."  In other words, a given
>> player
>>> has a choice of either leaving the grid or performing a rule-prescribed
>>> on-grid move.
>>> 
>>> Once the new, post-punted location of the football is determined by the
>>> Administrator, I enter the grid at that location, join Team Turquoise,
>> and
>>> catch the ball.
>>> 
>>> Nyah.
>> 
>> I would interpret it the other way - e may only (leave the Grid or move to
>> other units on the Grid) in a manner prescribed by the rules.
>> 
>> Otherwise, players on the grid are incapable of taking action entirely, as
>> the only actions they are permitted to take are (leave the Grid) and (move
>> to other units on the Grid in a manner prescribed by the rules). So if your
>> interpretation stands, your actions still cannot happen since you cannot
>> join Team Turquoise or catch the ball, as you're restricted to movement or
>> leaving.
>> 
>> Well done.
> 
> Well, no, fortunately the football rule has chutzpah 3, whereas the grid rule
> has chutzpah 1, therefore taking football-related actions supersedes the
> restriction.
> 
> Otherwise, yeah, once one enters the grid, one can't take any game action that
> isn't defined in a rule with a smaller number or higher chutzpah than Rule
> 301, or defined later on in Rule 301.
> 
> Neat.  So do we have a new SOE now, since a bunch of us have been on the grid
> for at least a couple nweeks?  Or shall we interpret that sentence in rule 301
> as being confined to grid-related action?  Who wants to throw out the first
> CFI of the season?
> 
> On the upside, this means none of the stock market nonsense happened, since it
> doesn't have a higher chutzpah than rule 301...
> 

How about we solve the problem by realizing that there is no problem. I can
see how the wording could go either way, so why don't we interpret it the
way 'game custom' dictates; that is, the way we've been interpreting it for
many nweeks? It a) makes more sense, b) follows game custom, and c) doesn't
screw the game over.

-- 
Wonko

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