Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

Burr · 07-21-2002, 07:17 PM

I agree. I didn't say that it was good to play against the rules. I said that there currently is no standard set of rules by which the game is (adequately) defined.

There must be standard rules to go along with the tools, the code, if you believe that there are values the code cannot completely account for. And if there are none, then it should come as no surprise that people act differently, as they all have varying opinions on what the standard rules should be should there ever be any. (It's kinda like the corporate accounting crisis we are having right now.)

If all you have is the code, and a rule saying "Don't violate the code," then you really don't have any meaningful rules at all. We might as well pass a law making it a crime to violate the laws of physics. Should we shun airplane pilots for exploiting a loophole in our gravity system?

The rape example is irrelevant. Our laws expressly forbid rape. We don't try to cover it under absurd laws like "Be good!" or "Don't violate laws of nature!" Would you really like to go back to the times when the "laws of nature" reasoning could be used for banning anything and everything a particular leader didn't agree with, when we could instead have a law expressly forbidding rape?

Not only is it irrelevant, the rape example is rather extreme compared to exploiting a loophole on a mud.

A more relevant and proportional example would be something along the lines of poor etiquette. And it needs, of course, to actually be beneficial to the performer relative to other people, rather than just being something against tradition or personal tastes.

Such as eating most of the candy in a dish on the host's coffee table! That fits because maybe the host intended it just for show, and maybe the other people in the room are just as hungry as you but they refrained for the sake of good manners.

Now, I'm sure they might talk about it behind your back, and maybe the word "pig" would come up, but should the host kick the person out their house for eating the candy? I don't think so. It was there in front of you, and candy is edible. Rather, the competent host would tactfully remove the dish when the unmannerly guest isn't looking. And I, being your friend, would wait until we were alone and say something like "I wonder if the host minded you eating all the candy like that?" And you might say, "Why should he? Candy is to eat." And I might not agree, and I might even say so; but as I don't know the host's unexpressed intentions any more than you, I wouldn't shun you for your actions or call you an agent of chaos.

07-21-2002, 07:17 PM	#14
Burr Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 123	I agree. I didn't say that it was good to play against the rules. I said that there currently is no standard set of rules by which the game is (adequately) defined. There must be standard rules to go along with the tools, the code, if you believe that there are values the code cannot completely account for. And if there are none, then it should come as no surprise that people act differently, as they all have varying opinions on what the standard rules should be should there ever be any. (It's kinda like the corporate accounting crisis we are having right now.) If all you have is the code, and a rule saying "Don't violate the code," then you really don't have any meaningful rules at all. We might as well pass a law making it a crime to violate the laws of physics. Should we shun airplane pilots for exploiting a loophole in our gravity system? The rape example is irrelevant. Our laws expressly forbid rape. We don't try to cover it under absurd laws like "Be good!" or "Don't violate laws of nature!" Would you really like to go back to the times when the "laws of nature" reasoning could be used for banning anything and everything a particular leader didn't agree with, when we could instead have a law expressly forbidding rape? Not only is it irrelevant, the rape example is rather extreme compared to exploiting a loophole on a mud. A more relevant and proportional example would be something along the lines of poor etiquette. And it needs, of course, to actually be beneficial to the performer relative to other people, rather than just being something against tradition or personal tastes. Such as eating most of the candy in a dish on the host's coffee table! That fits because maybe the host intended it just for show, and maybe the other people in the room are just as hungry as you but they refrained for the sake of good manners. Now, I'm sure they might talk about it behind your back, and maybe the word "pig" would come up, but should the host kick the person out their house for eating the candy? I don't think so. It was there in front of you, and candy is edible. Rather, the competent host would tactfully remove the dish when the unmannerly guest isn't looking. And I, being your friend, would wait until we were alone and say something like "I wonder if the host minded you eating all the candy like that?" And you might say, "Why should he? Candy is to eat." And I might not agree, and I might even say so; but as I don't know the host's unexpressed intentions any more than you, I wouldn't shun you for your actions or call you an agent of chaos.