Thursday, July 20, 2006

Is this Bribery illegal?

The ruleset states “A Traveller may occasionally [bribe]”.  In the past, we have used this language to limit the action to happening once a week.  The distinct alternative, “Each Traveller may…” is not used.

However, I notice that Chronos Phanon has bribed Hix and Saki has bribed Kaddar, despite this limitation.

Undoing the illegal actions.  Please post any complaints here.

Comments

kaddar:

20-07-2006 17:37:28 UTC

Complaint: It seems The Continuum and the Modus Ponens rules are also currently worded this way and are not being interpreted the way you are interpreting them.

Therefore, it seems like this should have been a Call for Judgement.

I suggest we change the ruleset for the future so that it coincides with our intepretation.  No retroactive changes should be made because that would be confusing with the possibility of this having happened more than once..

By your logic, are these instances of you breaking the continuum form of this rule?  (I’m honestly asking, I’m not sure):

13/07 03:11 (UTC) - Bucky
  Bucky’s Formula = w+x+yz=t (was w+xy_z=t)

13/07 03:11 (UTC) - Bucky
  Bucky’s Formula = w+x+y+z=t (was w+x+yz=t)
(&^%$#@!)


and:

10/07 10:28 (UTC) - Purplebeard
  Purplebeard’s TemporalLocation = 1448/12/25 (was 1448/11/25)
10/07 12:38 (UTC) - Bucky
  Bucky’s TemporalLocation = 1448/12/25 (was 1419/11/26)

ChronosPhaenon:

20-07-2006 17:42:58 UTC

I side with kaddar

Bucky:

20-07-2006 17:52:39 UTC

So basically we have an ambiguous construct?  I don’t usually use “A” where “Any” would do.

Bucky:

20-07-2006 18:02:16 UTC

Well, on further examination, we’ve been using “A” this way for a while.

Bucky:

20-07-2006 18:03:35 UTC

Further further examination suggests that the location of Occasionally, rather than the article/adverb used, is the critical factor.

ChronosPhaenon:

20-07-2006 18:11:51 UTC

Further examination shows that rule lawyering at that level is frowned upon by most people, and that some leeway must be given about the interpretation of rules. “A Traveller may, occasionally…” means to me the same of “Any Traveller may, occasionally…” or “Each Traveller may, occasionally…”

kaddar:

20-07-2006 18:15:36 UTC

I don’t really like often and occasionally.  I would prefer “Recently” and “in a while”.  Here is why, we could word it as such:

Single Limited:
All [Thing] Gain the ability to: If [verb] has not been done by this [Thing] recently, this [Thing] may [Verb]

Set Limited:
All [Thing] Gain the ability to: If [verb] has not been done by this [Thing] recently, this [Thing] may [Verb]

And here it is with shorter wording:

Single Limited:
If [verb] has not been done by a given [Thing] recently, that [Thing] may [Verb]

Set Limited:
If [verb] has not been done by any [Thing] recently, a single [Thing] may [Verb]

If you guys like it I’d make this a formal proposal.

kaddar:

20-07-2006 18:16:33 UTC

err sorry, the set limited:

All [Thing] Gain the ability to: If [verb] has not been done by any [Thing] recently, this [Thing] may [Verb]

Hix:

20-07-2006 21:36:41 UTC

Right on, Chronos.  Let’s get back to our game, all.

Saki:

21-07-2006 07:07:02 UTC

So, by the way you’re interpreting the rule, it cannot be used at all?

Saki:

21-07-2006 07:34:58 UTC

That aside, I don’t see how my bribing Kaddar was illegal. I’ve never used the Broader Bribery! subrule before, so it is well within my power to use it. “A Traveller” could be the same as “Any Traveller”.  When somebody gets hurt badly, they’re taken to “A Doctor”. It doesn’t matter who they are, simply what they are.

Thelonious:

21-07-2006 11:44:00 UTC

CP - In general, I’m happy with rules lawyering in Nomic (isn’t that the whole point?!)

However, I agree with your interpretation that “A/any/each traveller may often…” all mean the same thing and all forms allow every traveller in the game to perform the action often independently of other travellers doing the same.

Saki, it’s a shame you’ve got caught up in this.  Sadly, now that Bucky has reversed your GNDT change, your only recourse is to CfJ it.  If you go down that route, I’ll for a CfJ that re-does the changes.

Hix:

21-07-2006 16:57:48 UTC

D’oh!  That “shall” in the next-to-last paragraph of Rule 1.7 is pretty annoying.

Bucky:

21-07-2006 18:09:46 UTC

Or you could just do it again.