Spirit vs letter of the rules

S

Seattle_Dave

Newbie
No, but the ARC will supply clarifications of intent of the rule as created if trouble arises. While I do agree that the wording of a rule can be the law of the game, I think it is often the victim of unintended consequences and the spirit of the rules must be looked to...

Actually, I think I am going to start a new thread for this discussion....
Click to expand...

and here it is!

So, anyway. Spirit vs letter of the rules. This is something I recently wrote in the Owners' area of the national boards -

"We are dealing with a culture which has sprung up over the years of strict rules interpretations and using those interpretations to the greatest benefit. Even in the discussions of the proposals on our boards I have had players say "well this says this, so it can't be any other way" when I try to argue the spirit of the rule. It's not writing to bad or good players, it's writing to a culture which believes the rulebook is the final source for what the rule is... even when what the rule book says is open to interpretation.

Can I, as Owner, say that I feel the spirit is thus and so? Certainly. Will it stick? *shrug* Until the marshals all get together and say that it's not what the book says. Since running a game requires I trust the Marshals just as they trust me, it is a difficult road to walk down."

Thoughts?
 
reposted with additions
If the wording can be adjusted prior to printing so that it reflects the spirit exactly, then it should be. Anything less is pure bullheadedness that leads to differences in the rules between chapters, something I thought being part of an Alliance was intended to prevent.

"You must turn right"
"Okay, so I turned right and died, thanks."
"No no, you didn't have to turn right."
"I didn't? Why didn't you tell me that?"
"Dude, it's totally about the spirit of what I said, not what I actually said."
"So, like, if someone else comes here, are you gonna tell them that they may turn right if they wanna?"
"Oh, no. I'm totally gonna tell them that they must turn right."
"Sweet."
 
Honestly, Dave, I think the big bugaboo about this is that so many times in the past two editions of the rules the wording was so poor that even non-rules lawyers were confused as to how the rule worked. That is a big part of what has lead to the whole EC v WC thing that exists. Instances of:

WC: this rule is this way
EC: no it's not, never has been
WC: well that's not how we read it and we've always played that way
EC: well that's not what we meant when we wrote it that way, and we've never played it that way
WC: well why didn't you write it clearer
EC: did you not hear us? we said we knew what it meant when we wrote it, what else do you want?

I know I, for one, and I'm interpreting other people's concerns as a reflection of this, don't want any more of that, so why not write the rule to contain the spirit within? If it's an RP skill, write it in such a way as to convey that. Like:

This mental ability can be particularly strenuous, and has been known to leave both the recipient and the administrator of it weakened as though they had been magically Drained, but this usually only occurs between antagonistic parties or especially long contact.

Not perfect, but you get the idea I think.
 
Jeff has it spot on.

It's certainly true that the spirit of the rules should take precedence if there is a conflict between intent and wording. That said, the biggest problem with this is that (pretty much by definition) the spirit of a rule is *not* written in the rulebook.

When ARC has clarified the intent of rules questions as they have come up before, we have always agreed to abide by the intent, and it makes sense more often than not when clearly explained by an ARC member. There are two problems with the existing process:

(a) The questions are brought up on a public forum where people who do not have the authority to clearly and truthfully state the intent regularly muddy the waters and throw insults (intended or unintended) freely, making it a very hostile environment to attempt to get 'intent' from,

(b) ARC has historically been somewhat difficult to contact (no 'ARC' contact address/email) and/or unresponsive in the past (understandable as everyone has a life outside Alliance).

I'm looking to get either a separate ARC email set up or a forum on the National forums where anyone can post a topic but only ARC members may post responses, which would help things get answered without the ridiculous amounts of noise generated on the regular 'rules' forum over there.

-Bryan
 
I also think it would be very helpful if we could post up questions on intent here for you to take to ARC and get answers. I am also getting (on the owners board) that I an my rules comittee can interpret intent of the rule. Does it give local flavor? Yes. But with Bryan working on the ARC I think the process will be more accessible and we will have a better line to getting those clarifications.
 
Mike agreed to set up the subforum on the National forums. Hopefully that will help keep things moving in the right direction without having to deal with people who don't really know what they're talking about chiming in :)
 
I definitely like that idea, Bryan.

However, could it be noted whether it is or is not ok to then take that answer and put it on the regular rules or discussion forums for, well, discussion? I don't think letting people discuss it after a hard ruling is there and easily found would be terribly detrimental and would definitely allow people to get a better grasp of the how and why of it. I know it helps me to better enforce a rule if I know the intent/spirit behind it and sometimes that isn't worded in a very clear way by those who respond from the ARC. (Which is probably the biggest reason I've butted heads with them in the past...)
 
Alavatar said:
The ARC subforum is in the Rules section of the HQ forums. Mike said that you are free to take the ARC ruling to the Rules Discussion forum for discussion.
Click to expand...

Der, I could L2read...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top