Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lonely Tylenol" data-source="post: 4100931" data-attributes="member: 18549">This formulation is nonsense, and doesn't represent anyone's position.  How about this instead: In order to pass judgement on a game system, you must be able to answer objections that are raised over hypothetical situations that would require a reference to the rules.  In as much as you are capable of answering those questions using an incomplete set of rules, you have the ability to judge the game system.  In as much as you have lacunae in the sorts of questions you can answer with the rules you have access to, you are unable to judge the game system.  You do not know what rules you don't have access to.  Therefore, in order to be in a position to judge the system as a whole, you have to read the rules; in order to judge some small aspect of the system, you need to have access to the rules that interact with that aspect.That sounds a hell of a lot more like what people are saying.  I don't see why everyone has apparently allowed you to define their positions in the way that you have, and then argue on your terms about what they're trying to say.</blockquote>