Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 4039584" data-attributes="member: 4937">robertliguori: I think we are mostly in agreement.I understand what they are claiming, but I think that they need to do a bit more reflection on that claim and realize that even though they aren't achieving consistancy in the same way as simulationist leaning rules sets they still need and require consistancy.I've been using the metaphor of the difference between constitutional and common law.&nbsp; Both are supposed to achieve consistancy so that people know what the law is and can act on it.&nbsp; However, they go about achieving that consistancy in a different way.&nbsp; Constitutional law is analogous to a formal set of rules governing action and resolution, in as much as the framer intends to foresee the sorts of situations that will arise, defines them, and then defines the appropriate resolution in the system.&nbsp; Common law by contrast doesn't handle what is foreseen, but what isn't foreseen.&nbsp; That doesn't mean however that common law is intended to be completely inconsistant in its application.&nbsp; Rather, judges are intended to rely on existing precendent when deciding how to deal with the situation.&nbsp; If the situation is similar to a preexisting situation, then it is expected to be resolved in the same way.&nbsp; In this way, actors in the system (the citizens) can examine the body of common law and predict whether thier actions are lawful.&nbsp; We could imagine a system where the judge used no standard but random whim to resolve disputes, but in this case actors in the system could never foresee the consequences of thier actions nor would we say that such a system really had 'laws' or 'rules' as such.My point is, &quot;Where is this shared understanding of the narrative coming from?&quot;&nbsp; It's all well and good to postulate that it exists, but it had to come from some place.&nbsp; That someplace it comes from is I think provably, the rules of the game.&nbsp; Even if you claim that the understanding of the shared narrative comes from a shared understanding of how actions tend to be resolved in the real world, then all you are really saying is that one of the underlying rules of the game is, &quot;Whereever the rules are silent, you may assume that the narrative universe works very much like the real universe.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 4039584, member: 4937"] robertliguori: I think we are mostly in agreement. I understand what they are claiming, but I think that they need to do a bit more reflection on that claim and realize that even though they aren't achieving consistancy in the same way as simulationist leaning rules sets they still need and require consistancy. I've been using the metaphor of the difference between constitutional and common law. Both are supposed to achieve consistancy so that people know what the law is and can act on it. However, they go about achieving that consistancy in a different way. Constitutional law is analogous to a formal set of rules governing action and resolution, in as much as the framer intends to foresee the sorts of situations that will arise, defines them, and then defines the appropriate resolution in the system. Common law by contrast doesn't handle what is foreseen, but what isn't foreseen. That doesn't mean however that common law is intended to be completely inconsistant in its application. Rather, judges are intended to rely on existing precendent when deciding how to deal with the situation. If the situation is similar to a preexisting situation, then it is expected to be resolved in the same way. In this way, actors in the system (the citizens) can examine the body of common law and predict whether thier actions are lawful. We could imagine a system where the judge used no standard but random whim to resolve disputes, but in this case actors in the system could never foresee the consequences of thier actions nor would we say that such a system really had 'laws' or 'rules' as such. My point is, "Where is this shared understanding of the narrative coming from?" It's all well and good to postulate that it exists, but it had to come from some place. That someplace it comes from is I think provably, the rules of the game. Even if you claim that the understanding of the shared narrative comes from a shared understanding of how actions tend to be resolved in the real world, then all you are really saying is that one of the underlying rules of the game is, "Whereever the rules are silent, you may assume that the narrative universe works very much like the real universe." [/QUOTE]

Verification