Re: [s-d] [s-b] logical hand grenades

["Craig Daniel" <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 5:25 PM, comex <comexk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Oh, for God's sake.  While this is a game where we prefer the most
> reasonable interpretation of Rules based on their text, even if it's
> game-breaking, that doesn't mean we have to pick the least reasonable
> interpretation possible for the sole reason that the standard and
> obvious ones have the unfortunate property of /not/ breaking the game.
>
> "Any Player can set their X" means "Any player can set his/her own X".
>  For "their" to be used as a gender-neutral pronoun, especially when
> the alternative would involve interpreting a sentence so that a
> pronoun is used far too long after what it allegedly refers to, is
> common, standard English usage.  "A Player can forfeit at any time"
> means "At any time, a Player can forfeit", not "A Player can forfeit
> specifying any time for the forfeit, upon which it goes retroactively
> into effect".  This is just plainly obvious unless context indicates
> otherwise-- a situation which I can only imagine occurring in a game
> played by time travellers.
>
> There is plenty enough ambiguity to be had without every single Rule
> having to be spelled out as though it were being explained to a fickle
> genie.  No, we don't have to be Blognomic, which assumes that the
> rules say what they're supposed to mean even if they clearly don't,
> nor Agora, which assumes as much unless the rules explicitly say
> something different; but we needn't be their polar opposite.  Dare I
> say that, as a minimum requirement for an alternative Rule
> interpretation to be considered, the slightest _actual_ ambiguity
> ought to be present?  We haven't even got that here, just some Players
> panicking because they like the Emergency Procedure more than normal
> play.

I SUPPORT the above rant.

Although I'm unsure why it's quoting this rather than the bullshit
about J's actions:

> On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Tyler <wisety@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> The correct grammar would be, "On nday 12 of nweek 152, I *forfeited*." And
>>> no, you didn't. There are no restrictions placed by the game on when you can
>>> forfeit, but unless you have a time machine, you can't do things in the
>>> past.
>>
>> We don't have a temporal prime directive anymore, so that's no longer
>> actually true.
>>
>> BINRL, and real life physics do not necessarily apply.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss