On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 12:45 PM sukil via agora-discussion
<agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> El 14/02/2020 a las 18:06, James Cook escribió:
> > On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 at 13:06, sukil via agora-discussion
> > <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >> El 13/02/2020 a las 13:24, AIS523--- via agora-discussion escribió:
> >>> On Thu, 2020-02-13 at 12:40 +0100, sukil via agora-discussion wrote:
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> I was reading the rules before registering and came across something
> >>>> I didn't understand, I hope you guys can clarify this for me (I was
> >>>> going to propose some change for the first part, but then I might be
> >>>> the only one who doesn't understand this).
> >>>>
> >>>> First, we have objections, consent and support defined in terms of a
> >>>> switch (called n),  and the negation of them (without objection,
> >>>> consent or support) is expressed as n=1. Why is this so? Wouldn't it
> >>>> be way more intuitive that this was defined as n=0? Is it because in
> >>>> the ruleset the natural numbers are defined (not explicitly if so, I
> >>>> must add) as >0 rather than >=0? Also, what happens when n=2 in these
> >>>> cases?
> >>> It's basically because it's trying to define the most useful case as
> >>> shorthand. Without 1 Objection is very common: it means that everyone
> >>> has to agree (or at least, nobody can actively disagree) for something
> >>> to happen, so it's used to handle uncontroversial situations where
> >>> everyone is unanimous. Without 0 Objections would not be a usable
> >>> mechanism, because there's always at least 0 objections.
> >>
> >> Maybe it's because I'm a non-native English speaker (specifically: I'm
> >> from Spain), and "without objections" rings more natural to me and
> >> conveys the same meaning (though now I doubt if that's the case). So we
> >> could rephrase "without objection" to "without objections". A
> >> structurally simpler "fix" would be to add "without n objections (and
> >> its shorthand) is equivalent to with less than n objections".
> > "Without objection" and "without objections" both sound okay to me. I
> > prefer the first, but I don't know why. Maybe I'm just used to it.
> >
> > Sorry about the "unless" in Rule 2124, which I guess is contributing
> > one of the negatives. I think I'm responsible for that phrasing. It
> > just seemed like the easiest way to phrase it, given that it has to
> > appear in a list with other conditions.
> >
> > - Falsifian
> It kind of is, but I can understand the reasoning behind that. By the
> way, could I have submitted a CFJ with this same question? I kind of
> don't see where the limit is between discussion and business. It
> probably doesn't help that I'm reading both the rules and gameplay at
> the same time :) .

CFJs tend to get used for questions that are potentially
controversial. There's a bit more overhead involved with them, and so
it's sometimes mildly annoying if there are a bunch of CFJs that have
obvious answers. On the other hand, if something is seriously
ambiguous or there are competing alternate interpretations, a CFJ
provides an answer that everyone will respect so we're all on the same
page.  As a new player, if you have a question about the rules, it's
usually better to ask in the discussion forum first. Often there's a
clear answer in a rule or precedent that you didn't know about. People
may think that it's worth a CFJ and either advise you to call one or
call one themselves.

Over time, you'll get more experienced with the rules, to the point
where you can tell what sorts of things are legally ambiguous and in
need of interpretation. Even experienced players call CFJs that turn
out to have trivial answers, but there are a lot fewer of them. Note
that, once you get moderately familiar with the rules, volunteering to
judge CFJs is actually a great way to learn more; the Arbitor will
likely tailor the ones you get at first so that they're simple and/or
have relatively clear arguments on both sides.

As for reading rules and gameplay at the same time, that's totally an
okay way to do it! Lots of people find that easier than trying to
remember all of the rules out of context. Personally, I tried to get
familiar with the FLR before playing, but that doesn't work for
everyone (actually, from what I've heard most people are better off
doing what you're doing).


Reply via email to