Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9021096" data-attributes="member: 71699">This touches on a point of contention. So long as I don't count GM as a player, it's of no concern to me whether they employ more or less efficient means in performing their functions. That includes establishing a shared fiction. It seems to me circular to insist that GM be counted a player, and then go on to decry their failure to employ less efficient means... just because that is what is required if they are a player. Why not just say that they are not a player? Taking any failures to employ less efficient means as evidence of that.On the other hand, if I did feel that GM must be a player - or as importantly, if I wanted GM to be a player - then I can see that in its bare form anything like my proposed regulatory rule R* leaves undecided whether it will or will not form an appropriate lusory-means. Further principles and rules must be in force to procure that; and although I observe that such are in place in any version of R seen in use, it seems right to be willing to criticise their efficacy. I would also not want to downplay that different sets of such principles and rules will prove more or less virtuous for different purposes and modes of play.*Exempting GM from the normal suspension by players of their preexisting capacity to form and modify rules.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 9021096, member: 71699"] This touches on a point of contention. So long as I don't count GM as a player, it's of no concern to me whether they employ more or less efficient means in performing their functions. That includes establishing a shared fiction. It seems to me circular to insist that GM be counted a player, and then go on to decry their failure to employ less efficient means... just because that is what is required if they are a player. Why not just say that they are not a player? Taking any failures to employ less efficient means as evidence of that. On the other hand, if I did feel that GM must be a player - or as importantly, if I [I]wanted [/I]GM to be a player - then I can see that in its bare form anything like my proposed regulatory rule R* leaves undecided whether it will or will not form an appropriate lusory-means. Further principles and rules must be in force to procure that; and although I observe that such are in place in any version of R seen in use, it seems right to be willing to criticise their efficacy. I would also not want to downplay that different sets of such principles and rules will prove more or less virtuous for different purposes and modes of play. *Exempting GM from the normal suspension by players of their preexisting capacity to form and modify rules. [/QUOTE]

Verification