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

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 8/13/02 at 9:33 PM Wonko wrote:

>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.

The same game custom that demonstrated by precedent that dimships couldn't be nested? :)

Okay, I certainly support the idea that game custom and context would suggest the sentence pertains to grid actions rather than everything else (though someone could perhaps go and figure out exactly what has precedence over what in this game), but that doesn't mean my parsing is wrong.  The fact that no one has left the grid in all this time doesn't necessarily mean it's illegal.

						Glotmorf


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