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

["Peter Cooper Jr." <pete+bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 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.)

Well, note that rule 1-8 says "Rules are Game Documents that define how
this game is played." I think you need *something* to define that it's the
Rule game objects that you're following, and not "The text in proposal 30"
or whatever. From the game's perspective, rules and proposals are just all
game documents, so it can be helpful to have some way to distinguish that
the Rule ones are the ones that we follow that define the game, and the
Proposal ones have some other use.

However, I suspect that if there existed a proposal with the text "The
text of this proposal defines how the game is played, and the Rule
documents don't", we'd use Common Sense (or Unwritten Rules, if you wanted
to call them that) to say that we don't accept such a takeover.

> 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.

Of course there's confusion. That's what Nomic is all about. :)

The interpretation of what the rules say *has* to include *some* factors
from outside the game. For instance, nothing says that the game is
conducted in English instead of
some-language-much-like-English-but-the-word-"spork"-means-that-Peter-has-won-the-game.

> 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.

Well, the consensus I think has been "monopoly mode", as you call it. I
think there was a similar debate Ages Back when we repealed a rule saying
something similar to your monopoly mode rule, because we figured we didn't
need it. That is, if no way exists within the state of the game to change
the state of the game, then it doesn't change just by itself, or just
because player X says so. Whether you scratch your chin or go play a game
of Chess against your friend doesn't affect the state of the game, so the
game just doesn't care about it. (And I don't really remember the details
of the prior rule I mentioned, but maybe a search of the mailing list
archives would turn something up?)

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