Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="evilbob" data-source="post: 3521775" data-attributes="member: 9789">I've seen this come up time and again in different threads.&nbsp; There seems to be what I tend to categorize as two major schools of thought on the subject of rules interpretation:&nbsp; something I call a &quot;literalist,&quot; and something I call an &quot;interpreter.&quot;A literalist is someone who often begins answers with, &quot;According to the RAW...&quot;&nbsp; They believe that the rules contain words and phrases that were all chosen with specificity to create a very exact set of guidelines, and that these guidelines are simple and direct.&nbsp; There is generally one way to interpret a rule; this is necessary or else why have them?&nbsp; Infinity2000 is my #1 example on these boards of someone who is a literalist.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />An interpreter is someone who often begins answers with, &quot;I believe the intent of this rule is...&quot;&nbsp; They believe that the rules are closer to &quot;guidelines,&quot; and may occasionally use language that is ambiguous, and that it is necessary to imply and interpret based on what the rules are trying to get across.&nbsp; There may be more than one way to interpret a rule because it is impossible to write something that covers all angles for all perspectives, and one must use their best judgment to decide the best way to handle a given situation.&nbsp; I believe KarensDad is an example of someone closer to an interpreter on these boards.&nbsp; (Forgive me if you find this inaccurate.)My question to everyone is:&nbsp; which are you?&nbsp; Do you hit one of these sides pretty hard, simply favor one, or are you in the middle?&nbsp; Or do you defy categorization on this scale?&nbsp; And most importantly:&nbsp; why?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="evilbob, post: 3521775, member: 9789"] I've seen this come up time and again in different threads. There seems to be what I tend to categorize as two major schools of thought on the subject of rules interpretation: something I call a "literalist," and something I call an "interpreter." A literalist is someone who often begins answers with, "According to the RAW..." They believe that the rules contain words and phrases that were all chosen with specificity to create a very exact set of guidelines, and that these guidelines are simple and direct. There is generally one way to interpret a rule; this is necessary or else why have them? Infinity2000 is my #1 example on these boards of someone who is a literalist. :) An interpreter is someone who often begins answers with, "I believe the intent of this rule is..." They believe that the rules are closer to "guidelines," and may occasionally use language that is ambiguous, and that it is necessary to imply and interpret based on what the rules are trying to get across. There may be more than one way to interpret a rule because it is impossible to write something that covers all angles for all perspectives, and one must use their best judgment to decide the best way to handle a given situation. I believe KarensDad is an example of someone closer to an interpreter on these boards. (Forgive me if you find this inaccurate.) My question to everyone is: which are you? Do you hit one of these sides pretty hard, simply favor one, or are you in the middle? Or do you defy categorization on this scale? And most importantly: why? [/QUOTE]

Verification