Subject: MN: Basic Rules Structure

From: Dunx <dunx@d...>
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 21:40:27 -0800

Sorry, people, I haven't done the Basic Rules Structure document yet.

One thing I have been wondering about is whether to follow a format
similar to that of Section 1 of the Old Rules (which was certainly my
original thought) or to push for something more discursive.

The relative benefits and costs of these two approaches include:

Section 1 Style:

Pros	easy to maintain, since there is little duplication
easy to extend
Cons	hard to read or understand cold
hugely off-putting to new Players

Discursive Style

Pros	much easier to follow, since terms are defined where needed
duplicate descriptions are allowed, again aiding
understanding
Cons	harder to write in the first place
harder to maintain due to duplication

What do people think? Is this a distinction worth drawing? Should we
actually have two ruleset documents, one which defines the rules in an
unambigous but possibly impenetrable way, and another which is readable?

-- 
Dunx
"Fixing HTML is like grafting arms and legs onto a hamburger."
- Ted Nelson

---

From: "Snow" <snowl@s...>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 22:09:39 +0100

> unambigous but possibly impenetrable way, and another which is
readable?

I think the idea PaulWay put forward a while ago is probably the best.
Have a rule-by-rule version as the 'official' one and then (if anyone
has the time/desire to write it) a 'guide' written in a less formal
style.

--
Snow
(i hATE cAPS lOCK)