Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Arbitrary and Capricious: Unpacking Rules and Rulings in the Context of Fairness
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9130563" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>Alright. Aiming for brevity. While this covers some rather important things, it also completely overlooks the elephant in the room. That being GM secrecy. Appropriating your "arbitrary and capricious" courtroom analogy, but extending it so that it actually covers what I consider to be the serious problematic behavior, we get the following.</p><p></p><p>There is a government agency. It, like any government agency, has policies and such. However, this agency is charged with the serious and momentous duty of safeguarding "national security." Some of the things it does are classified. In fact, almost everything it does is classified. Sometimes for very, very good reasons...sometimes for no real reason...and sometimes for <em>bad</em> reasons. Now, this agency does something to a private citizen, which he alleges violated his rights--and the "arbitrary and capricious" standard is used. The judge requests that the agency provide to her the explanation.</p><p></p><p>"It was in the interest of national security, your honor."</p><p>"Can you explain <em>why</em> it was in the interest of national security?"</p><p>"I cannot answer that question, as answering it would be a threat to national security."</p><p>"Can you give us any details at all about the nature of this decision, or why it was undertaken? Or at least explain <em>why</em> you cannot share such details?"</p><p>"I cannot answer either of those questions as the answers would threaten national security."</p><p>"So I am to take on faith that there <em>is</em> a reasonable link between the facts of the case and the decision your agency made, because any information whatsoever that could be communicated to this court would 'threaten national security'."</p><p>"That is correct. Everything about this situation is classified."</p><p></p><p>"National security" becomes the tool which invalidates even this incredibly easy-to-clear bar. There can be no oversight, because to even <em>have</em> oversight would (allegedly) threaten national security. How can even this <em>incredibly low</em> standard be applied in that context? How can we possibly know whether it is correct--to say nothing of sincere--to exploit "national security"/classification/secrecy to make the decisions it makes?</p><p></p><p>But that's exactly what is required for the very GMing techniques that I take such umbrage with. No explanation, only deferment ("Don't question my rulings during session"...often thereby ensuring that there can be no post-session review either), or worse, outright deception (e.g. "illusionism," railroading, etc.) We cannot even <em>try</em> to apply the "arbitrary and capricious" standard, because no one is allowed to <em>know</em> that a ruling was made, nor why--it simply is, and the GM is never required to explain any of their reasoning at all, let alone show that it meets the incredibly low bar of "someone might potentially think there's a reasonable link."</p><p></p><p>Of course, none of that actually touches on the problem that...well, I think fairness requires a <em>whole hell of a lot</em> more than the standard being used as an example. The reasoning, as far as I'm concerned, actually needs to be <em>persuasive</em> to some degree, not simply "<em>some</em> person could consider it reasonable, therefore it passes muster, even if we actually think it was outright wrong."</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9130563, member: 6790260"] Alright. Aiming for brevity. While this covers some rather important things, it also completely overlooks the elephant in the room. That being GM secrecy. Appropriating your "arbitrary and capricious" courtroom analogy, but extending it so that it actually covers what I consider to be the serious problematic behavior, we get the following. There is a government agency. It, like any government agency, has policies and such. However, this agency is charged with the serious and momentous duty of safeguarding "national security." Some of the things it does are classified. In fact, almost everything it does is classified. Sometimes for very, very good reasons...sometimes for no real reason...and sometimes for [I]bad[/I] reasons. Now, this agency does something to a private citizen, which he alleges violated his rights--and the "arbitrary and capricious" standard is used. The judge requests that the agency provide to her the explanation. "It was in the interest of national security, your honor." "Can you explain [I]why[/I] it was in the interest of national security?" "I cannot answer that question, as answering it would be a threat to national security." "Can you give us any details at all about the nature of this decision, or why it was undertaken? Or at least explain [I]why[/I] you cannot share such details?" "I cannot answer either of those questions as the answers would threaten national security." "So I am to take on faith that there [I]is[/I] a reasonable link between the facts of the case and the decision your agency made, because any information whatsoever that could be communicated to this court would 'threaten national security'." "That is correct. Everything about this situation is classified." "National security" becomes the tool which invalidates even this incredibly easy-to-clear bar. There can be no oversight, because to even [I]have[/I] oversight would (allegedly) threaten national security. How can even this [I]incredibly low[/I] standard be applied in that context? How can we possibly know whether it is correct--to say nothing of sincere--to exploit "national security"/classification/secrecy to make the decisions it makes? But that's exactly what is required for the very GMing techniques that I take such umbrage with. No explanation, only deferment ("Don't question my rulings during session"...often thereby ensuring that there can be no post-session review either), or worse, outright deception (e.g. "illusionism," railroading, etc.) We cannot even [I]try[/I] to apply the "arbitrary and capricious" standard, because no one is allowed to [I]know[/I] that a ruling was made, nor why--it simply is, and the GM is never required to explain any of their reasoning at all, let alone show that it meets the incredibly low bar of "someone might potentially think there's a reasonable link." Of course, none of that actually touches on the problem that...well, I think fairness requires a [I]whole hell of a lot[/I] more than the standard being used as an example. The reasoning, as far as I'm concerned, actually needs to be [I]persuasive[/I] to some degree, not simply "[I]some[/I] person could consider it reasonable, therefore it passes muster, even if we actually think it was outright wrong." [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Arbitrary and Capricious: Unpacking Rules and Rulings in the Context of Fairness
Top