Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 3223736" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think both these posts point out the value of something like the FAQ (despite its flaws): it settle disputes by way of its authority.From the point of view of its defenders, that the weight of the FAQ depends more heavily on its authority than on its reasons is a virtue, not a flaw. (Note "more heavily" is not the same as "entirely". If the FAQ were always poorly reasoned, this might undermine its weight. But the occasional error can be tolerated, as other posters have noted.)The point of a canonical resolution is not that it speaks with authority only when the RAW are silent; rather, it speaks when the RAW are not manifest. This is a much lower threshhold, and one which will (typically) be more clearly either satisfied or not.If the FAQ is to be useful, it has to be accepted on this basis. If someone will insist that the FAQ can speak only when the RAW are silent, and then insists on running a 20-page argument to show why the RAW are or are not silent on a particular issue, of course the FAQ will be unhelpful. But at the lower threshhold, the fact that a meaningful 20-page argument is possible shows that the rules are not manifest, and thus that the FAQ has authority to speak, resolving the matter in an authoritative manner.Am I right in thinking that you're not a lawyer? Arguing for conclusions from ambiguous texts is what lawyers get paid to do, and its the most important skill that I try to teach my students (I am a law lecturer in Melbourne, Australia).And by the way, the fact that a conlcusion is based on ambiguous text does not entail that it is unsupportable. Nearly all natural arguments expressed in natural language are based on ambiguous language of some sort, but (at least in many cases) they are not therefore unsupportable. (I also lecture in philosophy.)Of course, "ambiguous", like my own "not manifest", admits of multiple meanings and interpretations. But I think the need for a 20-page interpretive argument is typically sufficient evidence that the interpretation in question is neither obvious nor clear-cut. And this is the threshhold that must be accepted, if the FAQ is to be useful. If one wants the benefits of authority - easily portable rulings, quick pick-up games, etc - then this seems a reasonable threshhold to accept.What if the RAW contains contradictory rules? In such case, at least one of the sentences must be false. And if a sentence in a rule book is false, that suggests that the sentence is wrong.Now consider the following contradiction: one part of the RAW says "The rule for doing X is Z" while another part says "This game contains no rule for how to do X." This is a case where, if it is the second sentence that is false, then the RAW are wrong about what the RAW are. Given the complexity and sheer length of the D&D rules, I'd be surprised if there's no instance in the rulebooks of something like this sort of contradiction.</blockquote>

Verification