[spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] CFI -- default case vs. default permissibility

[Wonko <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> I make the following CFI:
> 
> Statement:
> 
> Actions, involving the manipulation of game entities, that are neither
> explicitly permitted nor explicitly prohibited, but for which there exists
> implicit precedent in similar manipulations being explicitly permitted for
> similar game entities, are permitted.
> 
> Analysis:
> 
> The default case rule says (a) it is illegal to change the game state, and (b)
> it defers to all other rules. I interpret "all other rules" to mean the
> ruleset as a whole, and to include Rule 18, which says anything not regulated
> or prohibited is unregulated and unprohibited.
> 
> I submit that there are levels to regulation.  Explicit regulation deals with
> particular cases, particular game entities, particular acts of manipulation,
> etc.  Implicit regulation deals with classes of game entities and/or classes
> of acts of manipulation.  Explicit regulation of a particular entity implies
> some measure of regulation for the class of entities the particular entity
> belongs to.  For example, to say that amounts of one dimension can be
> transferred from one player to another implies amounts of dimensions in
> general are entities in their own right, and that under certain circumstances
> they can be transferred between players.  As the default case defers to the
> particular rule that explicitly permits specific transfers, so too must it
> defer to the implicit concept that transfers are permissible.
> 
> Hence, Rule 18, which says that which is unregulated is permissible, overrides
> the default case, since, on the one hand, the default case defers to the
> ruleset as a whole, which may provide sufficient implicit regulation for an
> action, while there is no explicit regulation that can be recognized by Rule
> 18.

Now, I would have interpreted this the other way around; I think there's a
much stronger logical basis for the statement that r393 works and r18
doesn't:

R393 states that "players may not change the gamestate".

This constitutes a regulation of all actions which would change the
gamestate.

R18 only concerns itself with actions that are not regulated/prohibited by
other rules.

Thus, r18 does not apply to any action which is regulated by the Default
case.

Precedence doesn't come into it, because the rules are not directly in
conflict with each other. And, since precedence doesn't matter, the fact
that r393 defers to r18 doesn't matter, as r18 doesn't try to allow anything
which r393 prohibits.


So now the question is, which would people prefer? Should we change r18 so
it bans changes to the gamestate, or should we repeal/radically rephrase
r393 so that things such as object transferrance are always legal?

-- 
Wonko

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