On Tue, 7 Oct 2014, omd wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In every other case, when the Rules say "A player must do X to then do
> > Y", and there's no explicit defined way to do X, we say "too bad, no Y".
> > That's the clear custom underlying ISID, and the legalistic style of
> > Agora in general.
>
> If the Rules say a player must Frobnicate the Foo, then we assume it's
> a rules-defined term with no external meaning. If they say a player
> must send a message to a public forum, we use ordinary language to
> determine what it means to "send a message" (depending on the type of
> forum). If they say players must not be compelled to "unduly harass"
> non-players, we don't say harassment cannot exist because it's not
> defined in the rules.
I wholly agree - there are shades of gray. If the requirement in
question is simple and straightforward by common definitions, there's
little controversy. On the other hand, extending that to cover an
amorphous multistep process might be too far (esp. as the rule in
question doesn't explicitly allow players to do this).
> I'm starting to see your point that "reasonably public process" could
> be interpreted as "reasonably public rules-defined process", but I
> wouldn't classify such an interpretation as legalistic.
Fair point: I shouldn't put descriptors. Hmm... what do you
think about:
1. The rules are unclear on whether the process in question must
be rules-defined.
2. Answering this question has some deep rules interpretation
ramifications on the scope and extent of the Rules (maybe) that
deserve a re-interpretation post-Rights.
3. The Rules are truly silent, so it's a matter of "Agoran
preference" in terms of play style. This makes it a really good
subject for a Moot ("voting" between two play styles).
