Re: [s-d] [s-b] ais523's Refresh Proposal

[comex <comexk@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 10:39 PM, Warrigal <ihope127+w@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 10:00 PM, Tyler <wisety@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I don't get this "Players can do this, but it violates the rules" deal. I
>> mean, if the rules say you can't do it, doing it violates them, right? The
>> way I read your rule changes is like this: "Players can do this, but they
>> can't."
>
> If the rules say you cannot do it, doing it is impossible. If the
> rules say you shall not do it, doing it is punishable. (5E36,
> "Judgment": "If the Consultation's subject is on the matter of whether
> a Player has broken the Rules, and the Answer is Yes, then the Priest
> may assign a Punishment of either a Fine, specifying an amount of a
> Currency, or Jail, specifying a duration of ntime.")

I dunno, is that sufficiently clear?  In common game language it does
seem at first glance that violating the rules = doing something
impossible.  Games typically do not specify a mechanism for rule
violations to be adjudicated-- even in games like Cheat (see a-d) or
with clauses such as Monopoly's cutoff for rent payment, lying or
failing to pay rent, respectively, is not considered violating the
rules.  When a rule violation does occur, the line between platonism
and pragmatism is drawn merely by consensus.  Though it's necessary in
law, and common in nomics, which pretend to be legal systems, B's
Rules don't really say that it's possible to violate them-- and when
something is made clear in Agora but left to custom in B, you know
it's time to run for the hills.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss