Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation

[Daniel Lepage <dplepage@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Dec 1, 2007, at 12:30 PM, Mike McGann wrote:

> On Dec 1, 2007 10:54 AM, Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> More commonly, if a type of action involving washing machines is
>> described, then that type of action is regulated.  However, if a
>> TOAIWM isn't described, then presumably it isn't regulated; hence
>> (for instance) Agora's blanket provision regulating anything that
>> would change the contents of a Public Display (i.e. if a TOAIWM
>> isn't described, and WMs are part of a PD, then it's impossible).
>
> I realize that is what is intended, I just don't see the jump to there
> from the rule. Also, type of action could be confusing. Let's say I
> give myself 10 Zar Points. I can do that because nothing prohibits me
> and it isn't regulated. Of course, it would not really do anything.
> Now let's say there is a rule:
>
> "Each Player has number of Zar Points that must be greater than zero."
>
> I understand this as that changing the value of the points isn't
> regulated yet, so anyone can change the values. Now add the following:

I disagree. The number of points is now regulated, and any  
modification is therefore prohibited.

> "Each Player starts with one Zar Point. Once per nday, a Player may
> increment his Zar Points by one"
>
> I can now see how the desired effect is that this now regulates it so
> only Players may increase their Zar Points and can only do it once per
> day. All other ways of incrementing Zar Points would no longer be
> allowed. A Player would no longer be able to increase the Zar Points
> of another Player, etc. But, I don't see how the proposed rule comes
> to the conclusion that "X is allowed to be done as long as a rule
> doesn't describe X. Once a rule defines how to perform X, that is the
> only way that X can be performed." But, would I be able to decrement
> my Zar Points at anytime? Can I decrement anyone's Zar Points at any
> time?

This is a resolution issue again. You could make a case that you can  
decrement on the grounds that decrementing is unregulated; you could  
make an equally strong case that you can increment by two because the  
rule only regulates "incrementing by one", or that you can increment  
another player's Zar Points because the rule only regulates players  
incrementing their own points. You could even argue that you can  
increment your own Zar Points by one at any time because the rule only  
regulates the first time you do it.

The question, then, is what we believe to be the "default" mode. That  
is, in the absence of any rules like Monopoly Mode or Permissibility  
of the Unprohibited, what is allowed and what is not?

My claim is that there are two extremes of resolution. At one end, you  
argue that the rules describe at least one way to alter the gamestate,  
and therefore altering the gamestate is regulated and can only be done  
when explicitly permitted.

At the other end, you argue that any action that isn't EXPLICITLY  
spelled out in the rules is implicitly permitted, including  
decrementing your Zar Points, incrementing them by two, etc.

There is no logical basis for any resolution in between, so we  
basically need to choose one of the extremes as our standard  
interpretation. The first interpretation has the advantage that it  
matches the usual interpretation from "normal" games like Poker or  
Monopoly. You'll note, reading the rules to Monopoly, that they never  
forbid you from moving your piece to other squares of the board on a  
whim, or from rolling the dice and then turning them to the number you  
want before you make your move. It is always assumed that this is  
forbidden.

The second has the DISadvantage that we can't say "Players have Zar  
Points" unless we then add a bunch of clauses explicitly regulating  
every possible way they could possibly be changed. It would be like  
requiring Monopoly to explicitly list all the ways you COULD cheat and  
forbid them all.

Therefore, I claim that the only reasonable choice is the first  
extreme: we should assume that any game action not explicitly  
permitted by the rules is forbidden, without needing any rule to tell  
us this.

-- 
Wonko

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