Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="superstition" data-source="post: 7377545" data-attributes="member: 32866">There are factual interpretations, non-factual interpretations, and subjective/debatable interpretations. Many of the interpretations I have presented are factual.If someone says &quot;The pool has water in it&quot; then it's not up for debate whether or not the person intended for people to think that person thinks there is water in the pool.Many of the original flaws are not, at all, challenging to interpret. What is challenging is revising them to make them usable. Whether it is done formally as I have in this thread or whether it is done in some other way, it will be done in any game that tries to be non-chaotic.The language I used in the revisions is generally natural. If people have suggestions to making it more &quot;natural&quot; then I'm interested in seeing them. Only a small number of my revisions come across as lawyer-like. However, sometimes it's necessary to resort to precise language. It depends on the difficulty of presenting a specific flaw.I don't appreciate the ad hominem.Suggesting that I am here to troll people is not supported by the facts.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="superstition, post: 7377545, member: 32866"] There are factual interpretations, non-factual interpretations, and subjective/debatable interpretations. Many of the interpretations I have presented are factual. If someone says "The pool has water in it" then it's not up for debate whether or not the person intended for people to think that person thinks there is water in the pool. Many of the original flaws are not, at all, challenging to interpret. What is challenging is revising them to make them usable. Whether it is done formally as I have in this thread or whether it is done in some other way, it will be done in any game that tries to be non-chaotic. The language I used in the revisions is generally natural. If people have suggestions to making it more "natural" then I'm interested in seeing them. Only a small number of my revisions come across as lawyer-like. However, sometimes it's necessary to resort to precise language. It depends on the difficulty of presenting a specific flaw. I don't appreciate the [I]ad hominem[/I]. Suggesting that I am here to troll people is not supported by the facts. [/QUOTE]

Verification