Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 2747896" data-attributes="member: 18280">As I have said, I am not in tech support, so maybe my jargon is off here.&nbsp; I am using the term &quot;user error&quot; to denote something that causes a system to fail not because of inadequacies of system design, but because the user is attempting to cause the system to perform outside of its functioning parameters.&nbsp; I.e., (1) the results given by the rules system are all considered &quot;acceptable&quot; by the designers, who cannot take into account that you will find X or Y unacceptable (or there would be no rules system due to an infinite amount of such variables) and (2) a rules system cannot take into account anything which cannot be defined to a reasonable degree, such as a quality X that makes fudging acceptable wherein X cannot (or will not) be defined.In other words, a problem occurs.&nbsp; The problem is not in the system.&nbsp; If the problem was with the system, a patch (i.e., rule) could be applied to resolve the problem, once identified.&nbsp; In this case, the problem is in the expectations of the users of the system rather than in the system itself.&nbsp; In some cases, this can be resolved by creating a special patch for the user (i.e., house rule), because, while not a system error, the error is inherent in the interaction of the system itself.&nbsp; In other cases, where no such factor can be identified, the problem becomes user error.&nbsp; The user simply wants the system to do something that it cannot do.Your solution is to alter the outcome of the system.&nbsp; You say that no number of house rules could do this for you, and you are right, because the problem is not in the system.&nbsp; It is in the definition (or lack thereof) of &quot;unacceptable&quot; results.&nbsp; Simply put, you are in a position where you either have to fudge, or you have to change what you find unacceptable.Sorry.&nbsp; Long-winded I know.&nbsp; But, anyway, that is what I mean by user error.&nbsp; Your fudging is not the user error; rather, user error is what leads you to apply fudging as a &quot;fix&quot;.Fair enough.&nbsp; Especially as you go on:Which is another (and I think better) potential fix for the user error problem.&nbsp; As I mentioned earlier, I use swashbuckling cards (thank you again, EnWorld!) and am divisng a system of action points.&nbsp; I am also a victim of &quot;user error&quot;; the term is not prejorative.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 2747896, member: 18280"] As I have said, I am not in tech support, so maybe my jargon is off here. I am using the term "user error" to denote something that causes a system to fail not because of inadequacies of system design, but because the user is attempting to cause the system to perform outside of its functioning parameters. I.e., (1) the results given by the rules system are all considered "acceptable" by the designers, who cannot take into account that you will find X or Y unacceptable (or there would be no rules system due to an infinite amount of such variables) and (2) a rules system cannot take into account anything which cannot be defined to a reasonable degree, such as a quality X that makes fudging acceptable wherein X cannot (or will not) be defined. In other words, a problem occurs. The problem is not in the system. If the problem was with the system, a patch (i.e., rule) could be applied to resolve the problem, once identified. In this case, the problem is in the expectations of the users of the system rather than in the system itself. In some cases, this can be resolved by creating a special patch for the user (i.e., house rule), because, while not a system error, the error is inherent in the interaction of the system itself. In other cases, where no such factor can be identified, the problem becomes user error. The user simply wants the system to do something that it cannot do. Your solution is to alter the outcome of the system. You say that no number of house rules could do this for you, and you are right, because the problem is not in the system. It is in the definition (or lack thereof) of "unacceptable" results. Simply put, you are in a position where you either [I]have to[/I] fudge, or you have to change what you find unacceptable. Sorry. Long-winded I know. But, anyway, that is what I mean by user error. Your fudging is not the user error; rather, user error is what leads you to apply fudging as a "fix". Fair enough. Especially as you go on: Which is another (and I think better) potential fix for the user error problem. As I mentioned earlier, I use swashbuckling cards (thank you again, EnWorld!) and am divisng a system of action points. I am also a victim of "user error"; the term is not prejorative. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification