Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9020418" data-attributes="member: 71699">I'd like to look at this first as it seems that what kind of "rule zero" we're thinking about would be foundational. Further above I accepted [USER=5142]@Aldarc[/USER]'s contention that rule forming and modifying is a preexisting capacity. I offered then a definition that rule zero was a regulatory rule assigning right to use that capacity (in the Game) to one participant. I had in mind further regulatory principles and rules, but have not so far spelled them out. Let's call my version thus far (and without those unspelt out principles and rules, of course) rule R.You here give a far more particular kind of rule zero. Taken literally, it is triggered by another player's move. The right is one of a veto - "No, that move does not happen." A minor duty is attached to it - add some superficially explanatory fiction or reference a house rule (I think that refers to a rule noted at an earlier time by at least the participant wielding the rule zero authority.) Let's call this version rule 0!There looks like quite a stretch of clear water between our definitions! I would like to propose reconsidering them on the following grounds<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">many sources (posters, game texts, articles) refer to using some sort of rule zero power to fill in gaps in the rules, but 0! does not seem to offer that power</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">many sources refer to using some sort of rule zero power to deliver a final verdict on rule interpretations, and 0! does not seem to offer that power (R does on the premise that the rule can always be made to conform to the wielder's verdict)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">many sources refer to using some sort of rule zero power to form new rules (i.e. house rules) and in fact that is the origin of rule "0.", but 0! does not seem to offer that power</li> </ul>When I read your version of 0! I picture rewriting it as a regulatory rule like this, in contrast with mine<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">0! = Participants shall submit their Game moves for veto by one participant being the holder of veto power; the veto-holder may offer any reason including no reason for exercising it</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">R = One participant shall have exclusive right to form and modify rules in relation to the play of the Game</li> </ul>Note that I believe another rule is always in force, like this<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">F = In relation to their preexisting capacity to form and modify rules, all players shall withhold from using that capacity except where expressly authorised by and in accord with the rules and principles governing the Game</li> </ul>For if F were not in force, I do not see how the game could be played at all. (Suits discusses this withholding from doing something well within the participants' power to do, in The Grasshopper, giving various examples.)So as noted I would not call 0! the way "rule zero" is usually characterised. It seems more a description of how it might be experienced at some tables! If your meaning is more - this is the upshot of R as I see it - then would you say you therefore accept R?Whether that is right or not, I feel that it's foundational to have a good grasp of what rule we're picturing. One option could be to just accept R and 0! as equally plausible, and run the arguments against both. Although there I will say in advance that if it turns out that 0! cannot be brought into harmony with the lusory fabric while R can, then R would seem to me to be the better rule. That is, I'm not here solely interested in the history of rule "0." but in current questions concerning GM / GM power. Most acutely, can they wield anything like my R - suitably governed by further rules and principles - without disrupting the lusory fabric? And what would such "suitable" further rules and principles need to look like?EDIT Finally (and as you've likely noticed) I will at some point contend that if F is not in conflict with the lusory attitude then that rather suggests that R need not be. [USER=7039850]@Enrahim2[/USER] has already laid out some options for dissolving the feared conflicts.</blockquote>

Verification