On Wed, 2009-02-11 at 11:48 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Wed, 11 Feb 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > > Also, I don't think clamping down on working scams is in the best > > interests of the game. > > IMO, the best interests of the game in a scam are, when all else > is balanced, whether admitting the loophole will cause far more > outstanding procedural problems (e.g. recalculating gamestate by > redefining some deeply-embedded term) than denying it, or whether > it would lead to dangerously absurd results in the future exegesis > of the Rules (e.g. redefinition of "minor" punishment as "exiled > for 100 years"). > > The granting of a dictatorship, on its own, does not a priori > stand against the interests of the game, nor should it. Sometimes > denying the loophole would do more damage in those terms than > admitting a resulting dictatorship. There's at least one scam > in the past that I argued against, and won the argument, and > now regret doing so in the interests of the game. > > It *is*, however, in the best interests of the game to argue > vociferously about the loophole prior to the decision being > made :). I think I'll agree with you on everything you've said here. (Incidentally, I'm curious as to what the scam you argued against was.)
-- ais523
