On Monday 25 August 2008 03:08:16 pm Geoffrey Spear wrote: > I'm not sure I accept that it's not possible to play if CAN implies > MAY. Of course, it makes a lot of the stuff that's intentionally > "CAN but SHALL NOT" for pragmatic purposes break, but it's still > possible to play. B Nomic for a long time effectively had rules > that made it impossible to break the rules since you could only > change the platonic gamestate in ways that you were explicitly > allowed to. Sure, it's a bit ugly to need to recalculate gamestate > when someone thought they could do something ages ago that they > really couldn't, but that's nothing that can't be smoothed over with > ratification.
I think I remember semi-recently someone attempted to abuse the ratification rules to make emself God-Emperor. I'm not convinced that "fix it with ratification" properly resolves the issue -- there may still be a harsh dichotomy between abusable pragatism and recalculative platonism. Then again, maybe not.
