shadowfirebird on Mon, 4 Dec 2006 13:31:47 -0700 (MST)

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

Re: [s-d] [s-b] Amended proposal: Legal Mode

Wonko, I think those are all bloody good points.   Although I think
you could take the "physics" analogy too far: in Suber's original
"paper" game you could still pass a rule calling for a chess board to
be part of the game, thus extending the physics.  (And if you didn't
have a chess board in the house that would cause just the same rules
crash as, for example, specifing the use of a server farm or an AI in

One of the things that I find most interesting about Nomic is the idea
that for once in my life I can play a game where all the rules are
actually written down.  (Which makes me sound like I have Aspergers,
but there you go.)  Of course even with Nomic that is not true, as I
am learning: for example, if something is agreed by all the players
but not part of the rules, then for all intents and purposes it's
still part of the game, because no one will vote against it.

However, as far as I am concerrned the only unwritten rule I am
willing to take on board is "you must obey the rules".   (I know Suber
actually made that a written rule, but I think that's not entirely
logical.  If you weren't willing to take obeying the rules as a given
in the first place, then a rule about obeying the rules isn't going to
help.  Because you might not obey it.)

Note Peter's suggestion in another thread that we've all come to a
consensus regarding whether a rule can be construed as a player name
or not.  I honestly think that's silly.  It's not in the rules; it's
not true.  This seems to conflict with what you were saying about
everything being in the rules - at least to me.  And of course earlier
Peter was saying the same thing... I think there is confusion here.

If there was - this sounds perverse, but I'm not trying to be
perverse, just logical - if there was a rule that says that you can do
things that aren't in the rules (as per Suber) I'm fine with that.  Or
if there was a rule that says everything has to be spelled out in the
rules, I'm fine with that.

What I'm trying to say here is that there is no consensus about
whether we are CURRENTLY playing in "legal mode" or "monopoly mode".
We need a rule in the ruleset that says that.
spoon-discuss mailing list