Gamer Law

[Jdvn1]

I'm not convinced games are currently written with enough precision for this. We'd have to first define gamerese.

 

[smootrk]

There are actual professions in law because actual laws are written even worse than game rules... professionals to interpret, adjudicate, and enforce law is necessary.

 

[hong]

It is a truism of the Rules board (and indeed of any discussion of rules interpretation) that proper interpretation of DnD rules often requires legal-style textual analysis. Our society already has offshoots of civil law: military law, canon law, rabbinic law, etc. Several of these are lifestyle-related.

Could gamer law be next? If so, what would the implications be? When and why would gamer law become its own specialization? What events might need to first happen for this to become reality?

First, it would be required that the "proper interpretation" of D&D rules actually does require legal-style contextual analysis, rather than this merely being the opinion of rules lawyers.

 

[moritheil]

First, it would be required that the "proper interpretation" of D&D rules actually does require legal-style contextual analysis, rather than this merely being the opinion of rules lawyers.

Noted. Though it can equally be said that it is merely the opinion of the legal community that all issues should be handled through lawyers. It just so happens that their opinion has practical consequences.

 

[hong]

Noted. Though it can equally be said that it is merely the opinion of the legal community that all issues should be handled through lawyers. It just so happens that their opinion has practical consequences.

And as such, it is no longer "merely the opinion", yes?

 

[moritheil]

And as such, it is no longer "merely the opinion", yes?

Conceptually or practically? Conceptually, there is no distinction between the two cases. Practically, there is some distinction, which I pointed out.

Unless you are espousing the idea that the ability to apply force somehow makes an argument more legitimate.

 

[hong]

Conceptually or practically? Conceptually, there is no distinction between the two cases. Practically, there is some distinction, which I pointed out.

Conceptually, pretending to be an elf is no different to pretending that a company is a person. Practically, there is some distinction.

Unless you are espousing the idea that the ability to apply force somehow makes an argument more legitimate.

Of course applying force makes an argument more legitimate. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to throw dice at annoying players when they won't shut up! AND D&D WOULD BE RUINED.

 

[moritheil]

I see what you did there.

Back on target, do we have any other serious thoughts about the present conceptual gap between the two? The discussion with hong underlines the fact that people think of DnD as "silly" but equally absurd business concepts as dead serious, simply because they are conditioned to accept corporations.

So then, would it be possible to condition people to think differently of games? How could that be accomplished?

 

[hong]

I see what you did there.

Back on target, do we have any other serious thoughts about the present conceptual gap between the two? The discussion with hong underlines the fact that people think of DnD as "silly" but equally absurd business concepts as dead serious, simply because they are conditioned to accept corporations.

No, they accept business concepts because these have practical applications. Hence the "practically there is some distinction" bit.

So then, would it be possible to condition people to think differently of games? How could that be accomplished?

Make it compulsory to throw dice at players who won't shut up. Then we can have proper legal-style contextual analysis of what constitutes "shutting up", who constitutes a "player", which dice are to be allowed, and who would do the throwing.

 

[moritheil]

No, they accept business concepts because these have practical applications. Hence the "practically there is some distinction" bit.

Yes, that's the status quo. I'm asking how it can be changed.

Regarding your other comments, it's a matter of record that you don't like rules-lawyering. I accept that you want to come in and make that point, but after this many posts, some of them quite nonsensical, it looks like you're just here to derail the thread. You don't have to contribute, but please don't sabotage. Thanks.