On Thu, 12 Jul 2018, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-07-11 at 21:05 -0400, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> > The invalid one was the one that I was referencing. As for why I think
> > ti can be done after-the-fact, I think that it is different because so
> > far, it has been fulfilled outside of the arguments in a preface, so I
> > either think that it should be accepted in this after-the-fact form or
> > any rule, which only referenced in a preface should also be marked
> > invalid. What are your thoughts on that? Additionally, I made the
> > classification, prior to receiving the message from ais523.
>
> Out of interest, does anyone know what Nomic World's status on arguing
> technicalities of the rules was?
>
> This conversation reminded me that the position on technicalities is
> one of the most obvious defining differences between Agora and the FRC
> (in Agora we rather revel in them and try to close loopholes, in the
> FRC there's a big split in the playerbase about how valid abusing a
> technicality is, with some players believing that a rule can imply
> things that it doesn't say and thus contradicting even an implied
> restriction can cause a rule's invalidity).
[Deposition from eyewitness G. entered 7/12/18]
In style, Nomic World was very similar to Agora. I missed the transition
from NW to Agora (left for a gap year while NW was still going). But
when I returned to Agora in 2002, many of the former "most active" of
NW were still in Agora (Steve, Blob, Chuck, Michael, Ørjan, maybe David?)
and just reading through the archives it felt like nothing had changed.
NW delighted in loopholes, scams, arguing about platonic states, etc. just
like Agora. Committees as a whole were used a lot for political/loophole
play.
A major flashpoint for NW arguments was that the "platonic state" gleaned
from the rules often differed from the "physical state" imposed by the MUD
(the rules said you CAN or CANNOT do something didn't acknowledge that the
MUD admins/programmers had great control over what you actually could or
couldn't do). In a way, leaving the more structured physical nature of NW
for Agora was simply an evolution to a purer state.
I was only a casual observer in FRC, but an abiding memory is a founding
FRC member telling me in NW "we made FRC to have a relaxing silly game and
get away from all the rules-lawyering" and they hated when overarching
committee NW rule changes interfered with them.
The best analogy I can come up with is that Agora was the home of the NW
government-in-exile after the destruction, and that FRC was like a
monastery, that was granted a charter by NW to use their facilities but
with their own ways and keeping quietly to themselves throughout all the
drama.
