Peter Cooper Jr. on Mon, 3 Jan 2005 14:53:16 -0600 (CST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[s-d] Re: [auto] BeeDee submits p1976

Bryan Donlan <bdonlan@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Currently the interaction of r10 and r11 seems to be to make all rules
> in all rulebooks active. In any case; you can either say r10 only has
> power because of itself, which leads to a paradox, or you can say that
> r10 gains its power from being in the Rules, in which case it isn't
> needed.

Well, I'd be inclined to lean toward the first position there at the
moment. Saying that the rules work because the rules say they do may
be a paradox, but it doesn't seem to hurt anything to me. (And the
game exists, after all, merely because the players say it exists,
although the game determines who is a player. Just because something
is a paradox doesn't mean it won't work.)

On the other hand, if there's no distinction between parts of the game
that must be followed and parts of the game that aren't (as would be
the case if r10 weren't there, I think), then why must I follow a
given rule and yet I'm not compelled to follow instructions embedded
in somebody's name (to give a wild example)?

While in most games, adherence to the rules is an implied part of
playing the game, Nomic is a little different from most games. I don't
mind the extra "insurance" by having the rules say that they must be
followed. That is, if it's redundant then there's no harm in leaving
it there, but if it isn't redundant then it should stay there.

Peter C.
"I have discovered a strange level of sleep deprivation in which I do
not randomly fall asleep and yet am completely incapable of
intelligent thought..."	-- Jessi

spoon-discuss mailing list