Peter Cooper Jr. on Mon, 4 Dec 2006 13:57:24 -0700 (MST)

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

Re: [s-d] Some actions

shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> Only if you could get the phrase "the Administrator" in the rules to
>> refer to you could this work, and I think that we've come to consensus
>> that if something could refer to a player or to something else, it's
>> got to be clear that it's a player or it's understood to be the
>> something else.
> Peter, I honestly don't understand this bit.  (I agree with all the
> rest, FWIW.)  When did we come to a consensus?  Is it in the rules?
> Is it in the rules that "coming to a consensus" means anything, even
> if we have come to one?

I guess I should have been clearer. I thought that when we had "all
players", there were few objections to the phrase all players in a rule
meaning each of the players instead of that particular player, and so
similarly here, I was treating it in that way. I needed to treat it *some*
way, just to represent what I thought the state of the game was. Like I
said in the beginning of that message, I could very well be wrong, and an
RFJ could clarify things so that I had to correct my previous statements
which would then be in error.

That is, just because I say something, doesn't make it so. It's just that
to make it easier on everyone, I give my representation of the state of
the game. Now, my representation may be wrong, but unless anyone objects
to it, it's assumed to be right, just because if nobody disagrees, we're
going to keep on playing that way regardless of whether we're "supposed
to" or not.

But I'm certainly fallible, and may just miss something or read something
different. That's why we need a justice system, to interpret what the
rules we wrote actually mean.

Peter C.
spoon-discuss mailing list