BlogNomic: The First Dynasty of Desertfrog

I’ve actually been interpreting the or as “player’s choice” same as Habanero. If we are to use past behavior in this dynasty as a guide, then the use of “or” to imply choice rather than “the union of” is at least as valid as saying “out of the multiple definitions of this word, I choose this one”.

In other words, we’ve established the importance of language clarity in this dynasty, and unless we’re calling a truce on viewing the rules as pliable in that way, I think we need to honor Habanero’s view.

If it is true that there has been disagreement up to this point as to how the term is interpreted then the way to resolve it is not to shrug it off!

I do accept that you and Habanero have read the clause one way, and at least I have read it another. I do not accept that your way of reading it is clear or common-sense, and if there are further illigitmacies to come to light then that’s a deeper issue. I do not find the selective read to be intuitive or even praticularly grammatically acceptable; the repetition of the word ‘whose’ in the clause is, to me, a clear signpost as to the axis upon which the word ‘or’ is turning.

Well, if we ruled that your interpretation of “where” was good enough despite being dubious in the eyes of me and JD, I think that my interpretation of “or” is at least equally reasonable. If the rules said “You may pick an apple that is on the tree or in the wheelbarrow”, I’d clearly understand that to mean a choice. I think making it a random selection like “You may pick a random apple that is on the tree or in the wheelbarrow” doesn’t really make the interpretation that the two alternatives presented can be chosen from invalid, though it does lend some credence to the two alternatives being treated as a single group.

I’d think for it to be unambiguous, you’d need to say “You may pick a random apple among those on the tree and those in the wheelbarrow”.

Oh, I didn’t see your comment there, sorry. I don’t agree that the repetition of “whose” makes your interpretation the only valid one and to the contrary think it supports the read of a choice between two alternatives more. “randomly select a non-Slug Snail before the Finish Line [whose Plays are within 2 of yours] or [whose Position is within 20 of yours]” clearly delineates two separate things here.

Either way, I have some Christmas stuff to get to and probably won’t be online for a while. If you don’t mind the edit window, I might throw my against out right now.

That’s a faulty premise; an apple can’t be both on the tree and in the wheelbarrow, so the example as a matter of construction defines a specific read that doesn’t require the reader to parse usage marked to understand it.

A better example would be “the buyer may select from the cars which are green or which are SUVs”, which would clearly be interpreted by most readers as allowing the buyer to select from the pool of cars which are either green or SUVs, not forcing them to arbitrarily narrow it down to one of those pools before making a further selection.

For the wording to the iron-clad it would have to say something like “create a pool of Snails that includes all Snails for whom one or more of the following are true:” but that way lies the madness of densely obtuse language; it is possible and reasonable to argue for the clear-English read of a sentence. I don’t think any of us want a game where we have to run every clause by a lawyer to make sure it is contractually airtight.

My point is that it does not even have to be a clear or common sense read, as long as the interpretation can be justified in some way. As Habanero mentioned, if Josh was allowed to interpret “where” to his benefit in Race 2, despite the common sense reading of where by everyone else, then this reading of “or” should be allowed, and call it whatever you need, scam or alternative interpretation.

If doing so feels like a dangerous precedent, then let’s in fact call a truce after this one, a “gentleperson’s agreement”, non enforceable but understood in the spirit of fun play, to not be as free wheeling about the definitions of every single word.

I’d prefer the edit window but thanks for asking!

For the record I also reject entirely the false equivalence between this situation and any previous one; if players disagreed with that outcome but failed to argue against it sufficiently persuasively to make their interpretation stick then that is their business.

Furthermore, two players making a cozy agreement, even brokered by a third, to look the other way is defrauding the rest of the game in a way that I will never agree to under any circumstances.

I think we can debate this issue without accusations of collusion, please.

I don’t even know who this “third” is.

That would be you - the ‘collusion’ in question would have to be between myself and Habanero, as the scambassadors in question.

Ok, my apologies then. I thought you were suggesting that Habanero and I were colluding to make this interpretation to his benefit, rather than us independently coming to a similar interpretation. In that light, I had no idea who the third person would be.

An interesting demonstration of how even grammatically straightforward statements can be misread when approached with a prexisting mindset about what they might say!

For record, I did genuinely see this phrase the same way he did and would have used it the same way without thinking it was a scam at all. I admit it could be seen as against the common sense reading of the rule, but I don’t see it as being an impossible interpretation.

I also do not want to play out the rest of the dynasty as an exercise in rules lawyering. I generally don’t do that anyway, which is why I hardly ever see scams coming or engineer one myself. I’m happy to close the book on this as the last one.

As for false equivalency, I’m just not seeing it that way. If it is felt that other players aren’t able to keep up with our angling here, then I’m all for educating them. More information is better. Let’s not treat them as helpless bystanders.