[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

You say that like it's a terrible thing.

No, I didn't -- that was an observation, not a judgment.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

You'll have to enlighten me why the trajectory of positive culture change must absolutely culminate in homogeneity of opinion.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

(Or were you merely highlighting the uninteresting fact that to call something "positive" requires drawing a conclusion about the morality of the process that caused it?)

...and its effects. It's a fundamentally moral process, and so agreement (or at least compliance) at least on those positives being worked toward is necessary. I meant nothing more profound than that.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

My assertion was that a strong moral position could be used to provide guidance where the rules do not—I don't think this is controversial. Furthermore, I think you're relying upon that process—and I said as much, without implying a value judgment.

Very good. That's not what I took away from your earlier comment.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Given that sentence in its proper context, I don't think you should draw the conclusion that I have not attempted to understand you. (Actually, I'm baffled by what led you to that conclusion, even in the absence of context.)

I was equally baffled that you believe that I am advocating a strong moral position as a way of overcoming gaps in the rules, when I have not at any point said anything even remotely like that.

After sifting through why you might believe this given our various conversations on the topic, that was my best guess -- that you were sufficiently busy defending your position by picking at mine that you lost the forest for the trees and ended up believing I said something I didn't.

I could of course be wrong; that was my best guess. It wasn't my intent to offend, but it's still my best guess.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Are you counting me among them?

No, I'm not.

I'm also not interested in having the moral relativism vs. moral absolutism argument on Chief Delphi. It strikes far too close to peoples' hearts (and foundational belief structures), and the flat affect of e-mail or forum almost always results in somebody getting offended at something somebody didn't say.

So while it's critical to my views on this issue, please forget I brought it up.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

But as for the other half, you seem to be recalling your own expressed opposition to positivist game design. I did not advocate for a completely positivist rule book, because I realize the inherent futility of expecting to write a truly universal set of definitions.

You were advocating for a move *toward* a positivist rules set, wherein the GDC should define grab/grasp/grapple beyond the very general "reasonably astute observer" test they have decided to use. Maybe that's an argument about where the line is drawn -- if so, that's cool -- but what I take away from your argument is, "I want the rules to be perfectly clear and not subject to interpretations that could be overturned"... which is just a statement of another impossibility in game design.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

FRC is not a cult or a religion, where the doctrinal interpretation is the only valid interpretation.

That misses my point entirely. It's not that it isn't your call because of some cultish devotion; it's not your call because you're the listener/reader in that conversation, and the GDC is the speaker/author. While it's their burden to be clear, it's your burden to parse out what they actually meant.

Again, this was a statement of pragmatics and the nature of communication, not a statement of who has (or should have) what power and why.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

As for your suggestion that one must interpret the rules by applying the GDC's moral standards, I find that highly suspect. Given that the GDC members' positions are not homogeneous (or even necessarily self-consistent), and only a few collective pronouncements of moral fibre are provided, one can hardly ever expect to be right (in the sense of understanding the rules in the manner intended).

...and yet they agree on what they're going to publish to the community before they say it -- and thus it's our job to determine what they collectively mean when they do so. You don't have to agree with or accept their moral standards, but you must take them into account if your goal is understanding what they've said/written. Again, this is a strictly pragmatic issue.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

They just read the rulebook, and enforce their understanding of it. They're not actively considering whether their moral compass is aligned with that of the GDC.

You might want to investigate how complicated the process of reading for information actually is. If they seek to actually understand what the rules say, they must, in fact, actively consider the relevant attributes of the authors. Given just how much emphasis FIRST puts on GP and Coopertition, they must be near the forefront when parsing the meaning of the GDC's words.

You might find Stephen Pinker's writings on neurolinguistics englightening -- his books are very cool.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Instead, they're burdened with the entire set of interpretations that satisfy the written rules in the book.

I don't think a superposition of meaning-states is at all how anybody reads rules (or anything else for that matter). Reading for intent requires evaluation of likely meanings.

It's statements like these, by the way, that give me the very strong impression that you have no idea how games are written. That's not the personal attack you took it as, by the way. I know nothing about biology and little enough about women -- if someone tells me so, I'll happily agree. I'm certain we can come up with an enormous list of things about which I'm ignorant; I try not to speak authoritatively about those subjects.

I encourage you to consider stepping back and trying to (a) educate yourself on the technical aspects of game design and (b) be less authoritative in your criticism and/or demands of the GDC until you have done so. You're welcome to take or ignore my advice, of course.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

trying to give it the veneer of objectivity by claiming that the GDC's intent trumps all only serves to make teams mad at the officials and the competition.

It could, but it doesn't have to. That's up to how the teams choose to respond to it. I would advocate that instead of getting mad these teams suck it up, lick their wounds, and take it as the learning experience that it is -- including perhaps especially ways to engineer things so that if the rules end up not being interpreted in their favor they aren't put out much (like 118's brilliant bridge balancing is a low-risk innovation as compared to the high-risk trollbot. There are more and less smart ways to take risks with the rules).

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

We can't be penalizing teams for following the rules, but not the spirit.

Sure we can, because FIRST has made it clear that the spirit and the letter are inseparable. (They make this clear by telling us outright not to lawyer the rules, and instead to read them with an intent to understand what they mean.)

Again, because they make the rules, they have the prerogative to tell us how to properly parse their intent. It won't be perfect -- language never is -- but it will be much closer to correct if we interpret things the way they tell us to.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

I find it amusing the degree to which Dean has backtracked on this outlook (at least publicly), to secure the participation of one particular popular entertainer. I offer that observation as evidence that perhaps it's not so simple as a bright line between right and wrong.

I haven't seen any backtracking on Dean's part -- quite the contrary, as recently as kickoff he was making moral judgements about where society is versus where it should be. Can you give some examples of his backtracking?

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

That's not the message I get at all.

I'm not using a superposition of meaning-states to interpret their words, so go figure our interpretations will differ. That seems to be the root of several of our disagreements.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

So let's not make this about us as individuals, and agree to avoid the personal attacks in future.

I would like to reiterate that I didn't make a personal attack. I pointed out that you appear to be quite ignorant in particular areas relevant to this conversation. I can't prevent you from taking that personally, but there's absolutely no reason why you should.