Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9223847" data-attributes="member: 71699">I was thinking of assent to apply the rules to ourselves in accord with interpretations in common, but you are right that there is the matter of how they are employed even given enforcement.For instance, many games have a win condition but no rule requiring players to try to win. Such rules are fraught as can easily be seen from the FIDE laws of Chess.This cannot be the only objective of players, for what of objectives such as controlling the centre, castling, or gaining initiative? And what of permission to err (to make mistakes that take one away from &quot;the objective&quot;). But if we allow players their own objectives and mistakes, how do we rule out acts falling into the fascinating category of &quot;griefing&quot; - i.e. playing a game according to its rules but in a deviant fashion.Bad sportsmanship (e.g. your case) lives in the same space: again the question not of what the rules mean, but how we employ them. Received norms and handshakes abound, and it is in this space that written principles and agenda exist, too. Huizinga deemed the spoilsport even more destructive to play than the cheat.Still, with computer games we don't need player assent to follow rules: barring implementation errors, rules take effect as designed. Your comment applies to a connected and possibly more important set of norms, which govern how players go on to employ the rules. How they play, in other words. It might be right to associate this with the separation between lusory-means and lusory-attitude.What's interesting here - and I want to leave this open - is the question of how it is possible to design for the latter, given that any written rule can then itself be employed not as intended. An infinite regress.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 9223847, member: 71699"] I was thinking of assent to apply the rules to ourselves in accord with interpretations in common, but you are right that there is the matter of how they are employed even given enforcement. For instance, many games have a win condition but no rule [I]requiring[/I] players to try to win. Such rules are fraught as can easily be seen from the FIDE laws of Chess. This cannot be the only objective of players, for what of objectives such as controlling the centre, castling, or gaining initiative? And what of permission to err (to make mistakes that take one [I]away[/I] from "the objective"). But if we allow players their own objectives and mistakes, how do we rule out acts falling into the fascinating category of "griefing" - i.e. playing a game [I]according to its rules[/I] but in a deviant fashion. Bad sportsmanship (e.g. your case) lives in the same space: again the question not of what the rules mean, but how we employ them. Received norms and handshakes abound, and it is in this space that written principles and agenda exist, too. Huizinga deemed the spoilsport even more destructive to play than the cheat. Still, with computer games we don't need player [I]assent[/I] to follow rules: barring implementation errors, rules take effect as designed. Your comment applies to a connected and possibly more important set of norms, which govern how players go on to employ the rules. How they play, in other words. It might be right to associate this with the separation between lusory-means and lusory-attitude. What's interesting here - and I want to leave this open - is the question of how it is possible to design for the latter, given that any written rule can then itself be employed not as intended. An infinite regress. [/QUOTE]

Verification