On Fri, 28 Jun 2013, Steven Gardner wrote: > What I'd be looking for is a ruleset which fixes bugs likes changing rule > numbers, defines simultaneity, incorporates > some lessons about pragmatism in a minimally committal way and generally > leaves the rest open for players to explore > politics and law and not bug-fixes and mechanics.
I was wondering on the advantages of that versus an identical ruleset with a stated set of "judge's precedents" that the Speaker could "recommend" would guide decisions. E.g.: "In this game, things [do/don't] happen simultaneously, forfeiture means you [do/don't] quit immediately, etc." Also, I wonder in Blitz if it's worth saying "if there's a paradox, nobody wins, everyone loses". Just cut the incentive for non-pragmatism way down.
