Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8396532" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Okay, from a philosophical perspective on denotative meanings, sure, you are correct. However, most people I have seen making similiar claims are doing so from a connotative meaning of imprisonment and limitations being bad. And considering you seem to be advocating for a Free Kriegspiel style, with no rules, then you seem to be viewing rules as a net negative in some fashion. Otherwise, why advocate for removing them? But, I think viewing rules to be similiar to adjectives just highlights my point. If someone asked what an apple tastes like, you will likely give them an answer. But, that answer will be very different if they ask what a GREEN apple tastes like (specifically thinking of Granny Smith apples, not underripe apples, which is even more specific in terms of adjectives) And like you said, this is neither good nor bad, it simply is, and has positive and negative effects. Which is why I've been posting. Because while many people seem to be responding to the idea of removing rules and increasing freedom, I want to remind people that many of these rules exist for a good reason, and have positive effects.I wasn't deconstructing it because I don't like the metaphor, I was deconstructing it to show that the debate you are trying to reference is in a very different place. There is a valid discussion to be had about Free Kriegspiel games where all rules are removed. I don't think the same can really be said about a debate to remove all precendent and judicial review and appeals from the legal system. And I think it bears remembering that a judge in a legal system at trial is not always the final authority, but a GM in a game often is. There is no one who overturns their decisions in most cases. In other words, I think it is a difference of debate between "should there be any rules at all" or "how much power should one have within the confines of the rules". Because I do think there is a general consensus that rules are good in general. I think the real debate is the matter of degrees, because if no rules was the ideal place, we wouldn't keep going from a place of no rules, to rules. I think going full Free Kreigspiel is an over-correction more than anything else, since it inevitably leads back t the re-establishment of rules.</blockquote>

Verification