On 02/08/2013 11:49 PM, omd wrote:
Although it appears to be more difficult than we had previously
assumed to formalize the logic of the rules, there are several
possibilities that have been posited in the last few days - some do
not work, but some do.
I must have missed it then.... Admittedly, there were a lot of messages.
Nor has anyone even responded to the non-logical side of the
argument.
Although it is unlikely that Rule 101 truly affects anything,
attempting to take over the game without any indication of plans to
restore it is fairly[1] rude, as the danger is that (whether legally
as per your argument or simply because confusion as to the correct
interpretation causes an exodus of players) you will bring an abrupt
halt to a game that has been played more or less continuously for 20
years; this seems unlikely at the moment, but the attempt to do so
still rankles, and certainly affects Rule 217's notion of "the best
interests of hte game".
This danger doesn't even sound plausible to me. Everyone's confused and
goes home, and never comes back? I doubt it.
but since claiming unilateral judgement, especially in this format,
does not particularly /aid/ your chances of being accepted, but
merely sows discord, I consider it unfortunate that you have elected
to do so.
Well, my style is entirely consistent with how I've been ruling on CFJs
right from the get go, which admittedly has only been 3, but still. So I
don't understand this bit either.
Note that in Lindrum's famous scam, the judgement was required for the
scam to work; not so here. (Lindrum, for eir part, made clear from
the start that e intended to continue Nomic World as a nomic [albeit
in a different form], and did not attempt to kick out any players.)
I'll reply to this separately.
Now. It does occur to me that a lecture about good form in an online
email game (especially one whose recipient is attempting to claim said
game in the name of a cat) can often reasonably be interpreted as the
lecturer taking the status quo too seriously, and I have received at
least one such lecture in the recent past. On the other hand, in my
perception the threatened harm in that case was considerably less,
although at least some players probably misunderstood... well, while I
do not wish to overly second-guess your motivations, I think you have
objectively acted more aggressively, and that this response is thus
warranted.If, looking back on this, we should think otherwise, well,
where would the fun be without an antagonist?
Oh, absolutely. Of course I want an antagonist or ten.
Back at you: where would the fun be without an antagonist?
Cheers,
-Dan
