Subject: Re: MN: Point of Order - Re: Game 4 Buzz on miKi.

From: Richard Brockie <R.Brockie@r...>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 16:43:30 +0100 (BST)

On Mon, 13 Jul 1998, Kevan Davis wrote:
> I think dave's point was that we've had Straddles occuring in Games
> before, and in every case they've been *from* a Token Stack. The
> fact that nobody's ever Buzzed and said "Oi, look, they should be
> *to* a Token Stack" suggests that we've all accepted the fact that
> Straddles go *from* Token Stacks.

It is true that all straddles have been made from token stacks. I myself
have never really used Straddles, and I don't think that one has been used
in a game in which I was participating. So, I came at the rule cold and
interpreted it afresh even though I have been around a while...

> Well, going by the fact that we've always Straddled *from* Token
> Stacks, and that the Straddling Rule uses the phrase "(the count
> of Stations being made from the Stack itself)" rather than "...to
> the Stack itself)", I find the Judge's ruling valid.

Fine. Lets have some mechanism in place for rulings like this to have an
immediate and clarifying effect on the rules. Er, I'll work on a proposal
to remedy this.

--- miKi

---

From: Kevan Davis <kdavis@i...>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 16:27:39 +0100 (BST)

>> I think perhaps we could do with an archive of judgments, so that any
repeated
>> queries over interpretation can be solved at a stroke.
>
>I was not aware that such a test of the rule has already been made. I
>think that the speaker should have executive powers to bring the wording
>of a disputed rule into line with the judge's ruling in such a case.

Because nobody noticed that various amendments rendered the actual
wording of the Straddle Rule arguably ambiguous, that everyone
read it from the point of view of knowing that Straddles go *from*
Stacks, the point was never raised.

>The evolution in definition of the Player's and Piece's move have caused
>the altering of the definition of a Straddle. As I see it, we should
>interpret the rules as they are, not as someone remembers them to be. I
>thought that was the whole idea of having them in a central place with
>adendments taking effect at a specified time? 

We should interpret the Rules as most Players consider them to
be. If through careless amendment one of the Rules doesn't mean
what it used to, I think that the widely-accepted meaning should
take precedence over the written one.

Another example of Mornomic being a somewhat fuzzy Nomic, really;
that if someone pulls off an impressive scam and wins a Game,
they'll get glared at for being unsporting, rather than receiving
the applause they would in another Nomic. If a loophole is spotted,
I think we all expect the spotter to fix it rather than exploit it;
Mornomic is more about producing a playable game than winning.

I think a fair example of this is the old Gordon Brown's Fair Fare
imbroglio - that a Rule said "a Player may move to MC if...", but
everyone bar myself (including its proposer) read it as "a Player
may *only* move to MC if..." - my conceding the point and playing
Mornington Crescent the way the majority were playing it seems to
me to be the correct way to go on these things.

>I raise a point of order to the effect that the Judge's ruling is invalid. 
>It should be based on interpretation of the rules, as currently written. 

And I'll leave it to debate, really. If everyone else stands up
and says "Well, I've always been Straddling to Stacks, myself.",
we'll reconsider.

The mere views of an arbitrary Player who happens to be wearing
a Speaker hat, anyway - by all means take it to an Emergency
Proposal if you'd prefer another's view. (Thinking about it, I'm
tempted to amend Eprops so that they can be Voted on by anyone
who cares to Vote within the next 24 hours - letting a single
person decide such an important matter seems rather unfair.) We
could use an Eprop on it anyway, just to tidy it up, if anyone
would care to submit one...

Kevan

--
kdavis@i... - http://www.innotts.co.uk/~elusive/kevan - UIN: 5998366
"Too many psychopaths, not enough cycle paths."
-- Half Man Half Biscuit, "Children of Apocalyptic Techstep"