Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9020479" data-attributes="member: 71699">[USER=7039850]@Enrahim2[/USER] your previous is very interesting and I admit that I had not yet reflected deeply on these categories of rules. The terms principles and rules may map well to constitution and laws. I'll use them here to see how that works out.I was picturing proceeding from my rule F as follows (this isn't right, but might be directionally useful)1) Participants in the game have a preexisting capacity to form and modify principles and rulesThat is neither a rule nor principle: it's descriptive of homo ludens.2) On joining the game participants agree to suspend their use of that capacityThis is a crucial component of the lusory attitude, as Suits spells out via his examples. Participants put in force for themselves the principles and rules.3) Many game texts imply an exemption from 2) for one participant, in relation to rulesThis exemption is sometimes (unhelpfully!) referenced as rule "0." That muddies the waters because folk bundle different things under it. The designated participant becomes your law-maker, right? They're not made exempt from principles. They need not be exempt from following rules (once in place.)4) The exemption in 3) continues to be subject to principles, and can be made subject to rules, which may further be entrenchedPrinciples are outlined in some game texts, discussed in articles, and often debated in forums. The law-maker isn't empowered to change the constitution willy-nilly. I suggest the possibility of entrenched rules inspired by the similar construction in company articles: even those with rule-changing power can't as easily change entrenched rules.5) Among qualities that ought to subsist in principles, rules and any entrenched rules are those that forestall disruption of the lusory-fabric, whether from within or without, that must be preserved for players of the gameA referee must do nothing to disrupt the lusory-attitude of players, and players must uphold that attitude. This might remove any need to decide if GM is referee, player, or both; notwithstanding that I can still see some problems to solve.</blockquote>

Verification