Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 386909" data-attributes="member: 2525">I think you are very correct on this last one.&nbsp; Potential abuse seems to play a role in most peoples interpretation.&nbsp; Strictly reading the rules is often done to prevent abuse, focusing on the intent has as part of its purpose the prevention of abuse, and of course use of real world logic is primarily focused on the abuse-factor.I think this brings up another intertesing aspect, however.&nbsp; If abuse were removed from the equation, would your opinion on a rules interpretation often change? For example, lets say you are a strict constructionist, and you are faced with a rules interpetation question.&nbsp; Interpreting a rules as result A would favor a use of a rule that gives more power to a character, resulting in abuse.&nbsp; Result B gives no additional power to that player.&nbsp; Are you more likely to interpret towards Result B?&nbsp; Does your opinion change if neither A or B results in abuse?I believe that, if the result can change based on the ramifications of the decision, then you are applying at least some form of liberal construction (using real world logic to interpret the rules, rather than just the text or intent of the rule itself).&nbsp; That's fine, but I believe if that is the case, for purposes of consistency, you should not act like &quot;the rules are the rules&quot; in other situations.&nbsp; If logic is an important factor, then saying &quot;that source of advice on the rules is meaningless because it is not from the core rules/publically published/an official source/etc..&quot; is an inconsistent position (and a bit unfair to your fellow players, who are at a disadvantage in advocating their case if the rules of the game become a moving target).&nbsp; Advice from any source, if logical, should be just as meaningful to logical rules interpretation as the official core rules text.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mistwell, post: 386909, member: 2525"] I think you are very correct on this last one. Potential abuse seems to play a role in most peoples interpretation. Strictly reading the rules is often done to prevent abuse, focusing on the intent has as part of its purpose the prevention of abuse, and of course use of real world logic is primarily focused on the abuse-factor. I think this brings up another intertesing aspect, however. If abuse were removed from the equation, would your opinion on a rules interpretation often change? For example, lets say you are a strict constructionist, and you are faced with a rules interpetation question. Interpreting a rules as result A would favor a use of a rule that gives more power to a character, resulting in abuse. Result B gives no additional power to that player. Are you more likely to interpret towards Result B? Does your opinion change if neither A or B results in abuse? I believe that, if the result can change based on the ramifications of the decision, then you are applying at least some form of liberal construction (using real world logic to interpret the rules, rather than just the text or intent of the rule itself). That's fine, but I believe if that is the case, for purposes of consistency, you should not act like "the rules are the rules" in other situations. If logic is an important factor, then saying "that source of advice on the rules is meaningless because it is not from the core rules/publically published/an official source/etc.." is an inconsistent position (and a bit unfair to your fellow players, who are at a disadvantage in advocating their case if the rules of the game become a moving target). Advice from any source, if logical, should be just as meaningful to logical rules interpretation as the official core rules text. [/QUOTE]

Verification