Geoffrey Spear on Thu, 19 Jul 2007 12:53:18 -0700 (MST)

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

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

On 7/19/07, Peter Cooper Jr. <pete+bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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...)

It's also true that Peter Suber's initial ruleset specifically
contains a clause stating that anything which is not forbidden or
regulated by the rules is allowed and unregulated.  I couldn't tell
you whether Suber himself believed when he added that rule that it was
necessary because otherwise anything not permitted would be forbidden,
but either way I think it's best to be explicit.  We recently had a
bit of debate over in Nomicapolis whether the successor of Suber's
Rule 101, which states that all players must follow the rules, is
necessary.  Granted it's arguable that such a rule just means that if
someone breaks another rule they're now violating 2 rules instead of
1, but I see it as the foundation that gives all of the other rules
whatever authority they have.   Of course, it's also recently been
argued there that Players don't actually have to follow the rules as
long as they can get the Judge to go along with their rulebreaking
activity. I think at some point you get into a philosophical crisis
about unwritten metarules.

Geoffrey Spear
spoon-discuss mailing list