Voidus

If there was a genuine interest in us having our own site I'd be happy to do so, I know of many affordable options for forums and this site takes up enough of my time that I'm happy to drop a few dollars into it Was this actually something that got people excited? There would be a lot of implications if we had our own forum.

That's fine, they were very much intended for you to take issue with them, I was attempting to deliberately make obviously problematic rulings to illustrate the flaws as I saw them. So I suppose I did a good job, though apparently not such a good job at making it clear that I wasn't being entirely serious with those rulings If it makes you feel better, highlight all the text in the posts I've made that you believe violate rule 15, you may find some surprises in each of them that will help you realize I was just making a joke. I agree in a sense, I openly stated that I believed that I had a different interpretation of it to you, that was the whole thing that prompted the update to its wording. But either way is going to be ambiguous, if what matters is the assumption of intent then everyones reading is equally valid, so long as it is believable that that is genuinely what people assumed the intent of the rule was. But the literal rule doesn't specify what to do if there are multiple assumptions for the same rule, who gets to decide which is correct? For example the original reading of the literal rule clearly had two different ways that people were interpreting it, both sides were genuine in their interpretation so which is correct? Both? Neither? The proposer of the rule? I can't imagine a fair reading of this where the intentions of the drafter are not key. At the very least you have to read the rule in the way you assume that they intended it, but it's still their intention that matters. Yes you're assuming their intention but if the drafter clarifies exactly what they intended then you can only reasonably assume that what they state is what they intended. So does that allow the drafter of the rule to settle any dispute by simply stating their intention? If not then whose intention are you trying to assume when you read the rule? Also to call to point: The fact that we're arguing about this and that you believe I've 'not understood' the literal rule is itself the problem. If my assumption of its intention is what matters then it is impossible for me to not understand it in the context of this game, whatever I assume you intended it to mean is indeed what it does mean for the purposes of application. That's true in the real world, though I will point out that most existing legal systems actually do take intent into account (As in the distinction between murder and manslaughter), but the literal rule states that everything must be taken as intended, so just as if a rule explicitly and literally states something but is clearly intended to be metaphorical then you should take the intended reading and not the literal reading, if someone uses a word but clearly intends for that word to be a stand in for whatever the correct word to use in that situation is then you should take that word to be the correct word to use in that situation. This was the reason I objected to the wording 'all things' in the literal rule. If everything has to be taken in the manner that you assume it is intended to be interpreted then it creates a lot of loopholes, I feel that the literal rule should be reworded to only apply to rules. :3 In order for clarity of discussion here I'm going to break some rules, I hope that people can appreciate the sentiment here and not UNO me on these but if you feel the need to then go ahead I suppose. If you assume that the word 'points' in the First rule of Dapper also implies the word 'point' in spite of those words being two different words, then you cannot disagree that the word 'point' could imply the word 'Egg' for the same reason if the intention is similar. In both cases you're assuming a word means a different word and literally applying that reading to the case of what you are doing, in one case that means assuming that the word 'point' should be considered a violation of the rule even though that word never appears in the rule, in the other assuming that the word 'point' is not a violation of the rule because it implies the word 'Egg' even though that word never appears in the post. And again just to point out that it's impossible for me to be mistaken in my interpretation of the exact implications because as previously stated, as long as you accept that I assume that this is the intention then it is a valid interpretation per the literal rule. (And just to highlight: If you think that this is, in itself a misunderstanding of the literal rule then the same logic applies, this is how I've assumed it to be interpreted and so it is valid)

Alright, well to clarify something, because I now suspect this may not have been as obvious as I was intending it to be, I've been being a bit deliberately exaggerated and hyperbolic recently in order to prove the point that you can't eliminate rules lawyering through introduction of new rules because those rules in and of themselves would also be subject to it. Also trying to point out that insisting that subjective intention should be valued over the literal wording of a rule can lead to some pretty crazy situations. The two inciting incidents that caused these discussions to arise, and the actual cases of rules lawyering that would be demonstrative of how I believed the game was intended to be played are as following: - A rule that says that a plural of a word should be referred to as a different word does not inherently require that the singular case be referred to as the singular case of the other word. - A rule which specifically states that a change to a post must be unnoticeable to violate the rule cannot ever nominate a post for violating this rule because noticing the change disqualifies it from being a case which this rule would apply to. I do not believe that either of those interpretations stretch the rules any more than the interpretation that a profile picture could be considered 'in' a post. In fact they're both just straight, literal interpretations of the rules without stretching them in any way. They're not deliberately misinterpreting anything, simply pointing out explicit language in a rule that creates a situation that is potentially unexpected for the drafter of that rule. :3 Subsequently I was more blatantly rules lawyering and stretching things to prove the point that leaving things to an explicitly subjective interpretation allows for even worse cases of rules lawyering than only allowing a straight reading of the rules would. (Eg. if all that matters is intention then I can simply intend to portray whitespace as an image and that must be accepted as satisfying rule 15)

Yeah my impression was that it would be about subtle interpretation and wording choices, players making sure that they didn't introduce an ambiguous rule that allowed someone else to win. As I understand your position on the nature of rules interpretation then I'd find it unlikely that anyone would ever win, barring it simply turning into a different game and someone winning at that instead. I was imagining that the game would end with the introduction of a rule and a player pointing out that that rule meant they now had enough points to win, due to an unforeseen loophole in the rule. If all players understand the full implications of all rules then all they need to do is keep track of everyone's scores and they could never accidentally vote for a rule which causes someone else to win. So players would have to win through tangential activities. From the way you're describing your intentions though it sounds more like your idea of the way this should unfold is that it is indeed just a game that evolves into other games and the imposition of rules is merely a way to facilitate changes to other or altered modes of gameplay, rather than the actual purpose of the game itself.

Just a note that this was explicitly stated in the OP, my reading of this was that it was intended behaviour which honestly is what caught my interests. If this statement was false then I'll happily withdraw from play. :3

Only if you take my words as literal, which you may not do as per the Literal rule if I intended something else. In the same way that the interpretation of a rule can change what it does and does not apply to, the interpretation of a post changes what rules can or cannot apply to that post. My intent was to make a post consistent with the rules, if you take that intent at face value then you cannot imply that it is not consistent with the rules. :3 EDIT: Clearer example perhaps - If you can assume that the word 'Eggs' also implies the word 'Egg' given context then I can also assume that a different word implies the word Egg, given context.

Then I invoke the literal rule to illustrate that in the same post I used the plural of Eggs as Eggs, showing a clear intent to comply with Dappers first Law regardless of what may be literally interpreted.:3 (This was my original problem with allowing the poster of something to be the one who determines the correct interpretation of it)

Dappers First law states that the plural should be Eggs, it says nothing about the singular case of Eggs. :3

Supported. Supported :3 Voidus' Ultimatum of Doom! (Also known as: Everything is RP) All players shall create a character sheet containing basic details for a character that shall represent the player in a collaborative RP. Every post that a player makes in-character for the character represented by the character sheet shall earn that player 1 point. (Keep in mind that winning requires 1,000,000 Eggs, and also that additional Eggs may be awarded through subsequent rules)

It's basically just betting 10 points that no one will see it. So if no one does then you get 20 points. :3

No. So if you say it and get caught then you lose points instead. :3

I do not support this rule :3 Or this. Or this. I propose the following: Voidus' rule of things - If a player posts the word 'things' in any post (Editing it in does not count) then they are to be awarded 20 Eggs. However if someone quotes said post within 1 hour of its posting and replies 'and stuff' then the original player loses 10 Eggs, does not gain any Eggs that they would otherwise gain, and the player who quoted them gains 10 Eggs. Also, just for future reference: I intend for whitespace on this and all future posts to be construed as being similar to a dog and/or cat that happens to blend perfectly into a white backtround for the purposes of satisfying rule 15. And as that is my intention, per the literal rule that is how it must be interpreted.

Have moved this to tech support for someone to take a look at. Screenshots may be helpful to clarify specifically what you're referring to.

Metronome smiled, it was nice to give meaning to the lives of those less fortunate sometimes. They went around all day, with no idea of what time it was, but for one brief moment he could enlighten them of their position in the grand scheme of the universe. But without exception they all became quickly unenlightened once more, time shifting as it did and beyond the comprehension of lesser minds. Only he was uniquely qualified to know at all times, what precise time it was. "Of course you have." Metronome said, a pleased smile broke out over his face. "I can hardly avoid drawing attention to myself can I?" He punctuated the rhetorical question with a gesture towards his pocket watch. Of course others had heard of him by now, he'd made several demonstrations of his power in the city by this point, no doubt those who worshipped him were spreading the good news around the city like a wildfire.

"Eight thirty-four and 17 seconds." Metronome declared loudly from the bar.

See I know that this is a joke, but I'm still tempted to reflexively rage out right now. *Eye twitches*

Maybe keeping a list of players and rules in the OP would be useful?

But the Slightly Altered Internal Consistency Plea does not apply to the post introducing the Slightly altered Internal Consistency Pleas (Per the Slightly Altered Internal Consistency Plea). Allowing free interpretation of the post without hinderance by the Slightly Altered Internal Consistency Plea. EDIT: There is no way to avoid the fact that interpretation of the reader is going to continue to be valid, any amendment you propose to change that is, itself, going to be open to interpretation.

UNO! Rule 15. UNO! Rule 15.

I propose the amendment that Voidus be an exception to all proposed rules except where he chooses to be affected by them. I support this amendment. I support this amendment. I support this amendment. I support this amendment. I support this amendment. I support this amendment. I support this amendment. I support this amendment. Majority achieved. Please note that as 15 minutes have not elapsed since the rules inception that violating them has no consequences per rule 21.

I do not support this rule. One person have complete authority over the interpretation of a rule spoils a lot of fun, more thorough drafting of rules should be encouraged to avoid loopholes such as the ones I am currently exploiting and because as mentioned applying this rule to everything essentially gives people freedom to ignore rules as long as their intention was to follow rules. Proposed rule: Voidus law of mayhem: People should be able to interpret anything in any logically consistent manner.

I'm rules lawyering.

By what rule did you determine this? So far as I have seen this was simply one person asserting their own interpretation of it, and again the existence of the literal rule itself implies that simply drafting a rule gives you no special rights to interpret it barring the existence of a rule explicitly stating that. Also, just a note that the literal rule states that ALL things must be interpreted in the manner consistent with the literal rule, so if we were to accept your interpretation of it then I could simply state that since my intention for my post was not to violate the literal rule that I have therefore not violated the literal rule and your interpretation of something else is, in itself, a violation of the literal rule unless you intended otherwise.

Several Denizens from the DA scoffed at this before being silenced by the lawyers once more.