[X] My Assistant

[phlapjack77]

Epistemology is a boring subject, but a class or two in it may be of help here.

Forget the class - I even had to look the word up ! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Acme]

What, are you saying this is some sort of political argument now? I think that yes, this is all about interpretation, but the ones that you've given so far sound like you mean that no rule system can be used because it's all up in the air, that everyone is literally playing their own game and we're just lucky that our versions match with one another or we can come to some compromise.

Now, see, the whole thing can go two ways. We can start dissecting how we interpret your posts, parsing the words, because hey, they can be interpreted a million ways, right?

[phlapjack77]

I wonder if lawyers have forums like this, where they sit around talking about the latest published cases or codes of their jurisdiction?

At least they get paid to argue for and against LAW (cool, LAW is Law As Written)...

That is one of the coolest recursive acronyms! I need to find some more...

[phlapjack77]

What, are you saying this is some sort of political argument now? I think that yes, this is all about interpretation, but the ones that you've given so far sound like you mean that no rule system can be used because it's all up in the air, that everyone is literally playing their own game and we're just lucky that our versions match with one another or we can come to some compromise.

Now, see, the whole thing can go two ways. We can start dissecting how we interpret your posts, parsing the words, because hey, they can be interpreted a million ways, right?

I think you're replying to me? Sorry if you weren't...

I've said in a previous post, I def. don't mean there can be no rule systems, I don't mean everything is up in the air. Yes, the rules are important for playing the game, for having a "baseline". My point is just that, like Missions, Missions isn't just playing SR RAW rules. It's playing "SR-Missions" rules. Those rules might be very very close to "SR-Acme's table" rules. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Your last sentence - that's exactly my point. I think you were trying to prove a point against me, but you hit the nail on the head of my argument very soundly.

[Acme]

Ah, so now anything anyone says in the history of the universe is up in the air according to how you're saying it. And I actually DO interpret it as you saying that rule systems are up in the air, phlap. That's how I'm reading it. If that's not how you're intending it, well hey... It's up for interpretation, right?

[Mooncrow]

Seriously, this thread is capturing the first few months of my sophomore epistemology class perfectly (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[Dwight]

Seriously, this thread is capturing the first few months of my sophomore epistemology class perfectly (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

That's just your recollection.

[Dwight]

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

Seriously, this thread is capturing the first few months of my sophomore epistemology class perfectly (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

That's just your recollection.

[Mooncrow]

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)
That's just your recollection.

True, I could simply be believing it to be true without having real knowledge of the memory (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[phlapjack77]

Ah, so now anything anyone says in the history of the universe is up in the air according to how you're saying it. And I actually DO interpret it as you saying that rule systems are up in the air, phlap. That's how I'm reading it. If that's not how you're intending it, well hey... It's up for interpretation, right?

*edit* yeah, sorry - was replaying my reply in my head, and it came off kind of smarmy. Didn't mean it that way, so it's changed...

Yeah, it's def. up for interpretation. That's why saying something like "It's obviously RAW, I'm right and you're wrong" is so silly. I'm right about this...whoops! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[phlapjack77]

Seriously, this thread is capturing the first few months of my sophomore epistemology class perfectly (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

So is this thread....sophomoric? <YEAHHHHHHH>

Man I wish I had taken that class you're talking about. I took symbolic logic and some basic philosophy, but never any kind of epistemology stuff.

[Yerameyahu]

Recursive acronyms are lame and evil. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

Outside of said class/late night stoner session, it's a trivial statement to say that all language is interpreted. While true, it's useless. We use a standard body of experience to interpret the RAW, which can yield 'obvious' (that is, commonly irrefutable) readings. It's only the more vague and poorly-written rules where such interpretation is stopped by ambiguity.

So… what did we gain here? Nothing. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) It's *exactly* like philosophy classes…

[phlapjack77]

Recursive acronyms are lame and evil. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

Outside of said class/late night stoner session, it's a trivial statement to say that all language is interpreted. While true, it's useless. We use a standard body of experience to interpret the RAW, which can yield 'obvious' (that is, commonly irrefutable) readings. It's only the more vague and poorly-written rules where such interpretation is stopped by ambiguity.

So… what did we gain here? Nothing. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) It's *exactly* like philosophy classes…

I think the triviality of that statement is lost on some of those who argue their point by claiming RAW, and discounting counter-arguments by claiming it's not RAW.

Hopefully we gained, at the very least, some entertainment? A little mental diversion? Gained nothing ?!?! Have you SEEN some of the threads on Dumpshock (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Critias]

I think the triviality of that statement is lost on some of those who argue their point by claiming RAW, and discounting counter-arguments by claiming it's not RAW.

There are times, though, when those arguments and counter-arguments are clearly either in line with RAW, or not.

If I say that according to SR4(a) RAW, a Smartlink gives +2 extra dice on the to-hit roll...if you come back with "No they don't, they let you fly and makes your breath smell like strawberries," obviously your "interpretation" of the RAW is pretty meaningless and without substance. Your "RAI," in such an extreme instance, is easily discountable.

Just because everything we read (or say) is open to interpretation doesn't mean that interpretation doesn't come in grades, getting shadier and shadier as it moves further and further away from what's actually written on the page in front of us.

[phlapjack77]

There are times, though, when those arguments and counter-arguments are clearly either in line with RAW, or not.

If I say that according to SR4(a) RAW, a Smartlink gives +2 extra dice on the to-hit roll...if you come back with "No they don't, they let you fly and makes your breath smell like strawberries," obviously your "interpretation" of the RAW is pretty meaningless and without substance. Your "RAI," in such an extreme instance, is easily discountable.

Just because everything we read (or say) is open to interpretation doesn't mean that interpretation doesn't come in grades, getting shadier and shadier as it moves further and further away from what's actually written on the page in front of us.

I fully agree with you, in that there are some rules so well written that the interpretation of them is pretty much universally agreed upon.

Except I don't see people arguing smartlink bonuses. What's written on the page for some is important information, what's written on the page for others is fluff or a topic sentence (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Yerameyahu]

Always ignore fluff. It only misleads you.

[Acme]

You know the biggest problem I also have with this, phalp? It smacks of rules lawyering, to the extreme where you look for loopholes by interpreting a rule different from the general "accepted"... I think I'd have a trouble playing with such a player or under a GM who felt the rules were so flexible that they could get away with anything.

[Yerameyahu]

Psh. It's hard enough with players who think the rules are so *rigid* they can get away with anything. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) But that's another discussion (I think?), because we know that the answer is to not have people trying to get away with things.

[phlapjack77]

You know the biggest problem I also have with this, phalp? It smacks of rules lawyering, to the extreme where you look for loopholes by interpreting a rule different from the general "accepted"... I think I'd have a trouble playing with such a player or under a GM who felt the rules were so flexible that they could get away with anything.

No, you're right, I hear ya. I'm really against rules lawyering. I'm not advocating this kind of behavior.

But don't you see arguing RAW as rules lawyering? Picking apart sentences, words, whatever, to try to find the interpretation that most closely fits whatever your agenda is?

If you always try to see the rules as RAI, you take an overall picture of how the game should be played - what the devs intended the rules to mean, rather than what the rules say. It's anti-rules-lawyering ! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Mooncrow]

No, you're right, I hear ya. I'm really against rules lawyering. I'm not advocating this kind of behavior.

But don't you see arguing RAW as rules lawyering? Picking apart sentences, words, whatever, to try to find the interpretation that most closely fits whatever your agenda is?

If you always try to see the rules as RAI, you take an overall picture of how the game should be played - what the devs intended the rules to mean, rather than what the rules say. It's anti-rules-lawyering ! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Arguing RAW here is a fun exercise. Seeing where the holes are, where the strong places are, what makes sense, what doesn't. But in the end, it's just an exercise in game theory, nothing more.

As for RAI - when it comes to actually playing the game, I don't actually care about dev intent or anything like that. I'll take what works and toss out what doesn't.

If that offends you, sorry, I guess. I'll leave you to your oracle to the devs mind - since I'm without psychic powers, all I have is what's written.

[Yerameyahu]

Oh Mooncrow, you're so edgy and transgressive! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) I agree that the dev intent isn't important, per se. That is, 'Joe Bob wanted armor to work like *this*.'

But that's not what people mean when they say RAI, anyway. We mean that we assume the rules are supposed to be (intended to be) balanced and functional; "what works", as you say. RAI means just what you're talking about, because the 'intent' there is 'fun'. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Mooncrow]

Oh Mooncrow, you're so edgy and transgressive! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) I agree that the dev intent isn't important, per se. That is, 'Joe Bob wanted armor to work like *this*.'

But that's not what people mean when they say RAI, anyway. We mean that we assume the rules are supposed to be (intended to be) balanced and functional; "what works", as you say. RAI means just what you're talking about, because the 'intent' there is 'fun'. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Is that what Phlap means? Man, I wouldn't have gotten that from his posts in a million years.

[Yerameyahu]

I wasn't speaking for him particularly, but since you ask… From his posts, I think it *is* what he means. I could be wrong, and I'll admit that it doesn't matter much. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Acme]

No, you're right, I hear ya. I'm really against rules lawyering. I'm not advocating this kind of behavior.

But don't you see arguing RAW as rules lawyering? Picking apart sentences, words, whatever, to try to find the interpretation that most closely fits whatever your agenda is?

If you always try to see the rules as RAI, you take an overall picture of how the game should be played - what the devs intended the rules to mean, rather than what the rules say. It's anti-rules-lawyering ! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

No, Phlap, I see what you're talking about as "picking apart sentences, words, whatever to try and find the interpretation that most closely fits whatever your agenda is".

Maybe I'm just not getting what you're talking about. But then again I'm not about to toss out the rule books, and I actually enjoy the conversations here.

[phlapjack77]

Arguing RAW here is a fun exercise. Seeing where the holes are, where the strong places are, what makes sense, what doesn't. But in the end, it's just an exercise in game theory, nothing more.

As for RAI - when it comes to actually playing the game, I don't actually care about dev intent or anything like that. I'll take what works and toss out what doesn't.

If that offends you, sorry, I guess. I'll leave you to your oracle to the devs mind - since I'm without psychic powers, all I have is what's written.

That last sentence sounds like I've offended you somehow - my apologies (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Yes, by all means, take what works and toss out the rest. It's your game, play the way you want.

Of course, to you, arguing RAW is a fun exercise. That's cool. Do you think it's "just a fun exercise" for others? Look back over various RAW threads.