On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:07 PM, Tanner Swett <[email protected]> wrote: > You know, I'm starting to feel like Agora really isn't the nomic for > me. Whenever we're faced with a choice between multiple valid and > justifiable interpretations of the rules, we seem to rarely simply go > with whichever option is most convenient or intended; we instead > interpret the letter of the rules as literally and mechanically as > possible. Rule 217 allows and encourages us to apply "common sense" > and "the best interests of the game" where the rules are ambiguous, > but we don't. The resulting messes and risk of failure are undoubtedly > fun for some. But for me, not so much. > > I > > —the Warrigal
There are a number of recent things that you could replying to recently, so it would help if you could pinpoint an example so that I don't defend something you agree with. I think it's worth noting that the text needs to take precedence when there is no ambiguity, however. We follow law in that clear wording cannot be cleverly interpreted so as to undermine its meaning, if its intent is clear. Apart from that, Agora has generally rejected the most insane interpretations of rules, although things are rather in flux right now with a seeming change in Agora's attitude. It's certainly at the least legalistic that it's been since I started playing. Sean
