Peter Cooper Jr. on Thu, 19 Jul 2007 10:51:10 -0700 (MST)

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

Re: [s-d] [s-b] repeal monopoly

Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On 7/19/07, Antonio Dolcetta <antonio.dolcetta@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> [[since we've never actually invoked it, not even in the Primo
>> Corporation incident (where it would not have helped anyway), we might
>> want to get rid of this]]
>> I propose:
>> title: repeal monopoly
>> {
>> repeal rule 1-15
>> }
> We might want to closely examine the entire ruleset to look for things
> that aren't specifically forbidden that could be abused before we pass
> this one.  For example, the rules define ways that a Player may gain
> points but don't, as far as I see with a quick glance, actually forbid
> a Player from gaining points in other ways (e.g., by simply declaring
> that e has gained X points).
> I'd argue that the Monopoly Rule would never need to be explicitly
> invoked as it's implicitly invoked whenever someone is accused of
> doing something in a way that's contrary to the rules.

It's been a recurring debate in B Nomic: Do we really need a rule saying
that the game is default-deny instead of default-allow? For instance,
there's no rule in Monopoly (as far as I know) saying that you can't just
pick up your token and put it anywhere on the board that you want. But
it's assumed that you can only do what the rules say you can when
affecting the game.

So, a rule stating so may do absolutely nothing, and I'd be fine with
playing the game the same way whether it's there or not. (In fact, we have
gone back and forth with a rule like that in the ruleset and not since I
started playing.) But making it clear in the rules doesn't really hurt
anything, so I'm inclined to think that if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

(Then again, this *is* Nomic, where the whole idea seems to be to try
changing the rules until they break...)

Peter C.
spoon-discuss mailing list