Permissive vs Restrictive rules

[DaveShack]

Here is a different approach to rules. Answers to this question will help a lot with other parts of the rules. I'd like to explore whether the ruleset should:

• Allow everything except those things which are forbidden by the rules
• Disallow everything except those things for which permission is given by the rules.

A lot of our judicial discontent has been over misreading the rules one way or the other with respect to this general principle. Sometimes we have complaints of the nature "the rules don't say you can do that, so I will argue that you cannot do it". Other times we have complaints of the nature "the rules say you have to do it exactly this way and you did not, so I say you broke the rules".

Which way do you prefer to play -- everything's legal unless stated as illegal by the rules, or everything's illegal unless the rules say it is allowed? It is also valid to say that you want a mixture, as long as we specify in the rule which kind it is.

For the record, I prefer a mix, with some rules which grant permissions which are assumed to be illegal outside the grant (who can do particular items) and some rules which place specific restrictions (leaders may only post instructions that follow the will of the people if known) without being any more restrictive than that.

Hopefully this discussion will reveal some specific actions we can take on getting the rules done, minimizing the amount of rules needed, and making as much clear as possible so there are less chances of differing interpretations.

 

[Noldodan]

Much as it surprises me to say it (given past events), I would rather have a permissive ruleset. If someone is crazy enough to really bend the rules, that just makes the game all the more interesting.

 

[DaveShack]

I never defined the terms, and wasn't sure which way they should be defined. Is this right?

Permissive == "it's legal unless the rules say that it is illegal"
Restrictive == "only those things specifically allowed by the rules are legal, everything else is illegal"

Noldodan, please confirm...

 

[Noldodan]

Confirmation. I'm using your definition of "permissive."

 

[Black_Hole]

i would go for permissive also

 

[Epimethius]

Permissive.

 

[Cheetah]

Permissive, as I believe that would make for the smallest and most comprehendible ruleset.

 

[ravensfire]

Here is a different approach to rules. Answers to this question will help a lot with other parts of the rules. I'd like to explore whether the ruleset should:

• Allow everything except those things which are forbidden by the rules
• Disallow everything except those things for which permission is given by the rules.

A lot of our judicial discontent has been over misreading the rules one way or the other with respect to this general principle. Sometimes we have complaints of the nature "the rules don't say you can do that, so I will argue that you cannot do it". Other times we have complaints of the nature "the rules say you have to do it exactly this way and you did not, so I say you broke the rules".

Which way do you prefer to play -- everything's legal unless stated as illegal by the rules, or everything's illegal unless the rules say it is allowed? It is also valid to say that you want a mixture, as long as we specify in the rule which kind it is.

For the record, I prefer a mix, with some rules which grant permissions which are assumed to be illegal outside the grant (who can do particular items) and some rules which place specific restrictions (leaders may only post instructions that follow the will of the people if known) without being any more restrictive than that.

Hopefully this discussion will reveal some specific actions we can take on getting the rules done, minimizing the amount of rules needed, and making as much clear as possible so there are less chances of differing interpretations.

In short, DG3 ruleset style vs DG2/4 ruleset style.

I know my preference, just didn't go that way last time. Give me DG3 style any day of the week.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Fier Canadien]

In short, DG3 ruleset style vs DG2/4 ruleset style.

I know my preference, just didn't go that way last time. Give me DG3 style any day of the week.

-- Ravensfire

Go permissive, but go clear, please! I am reffering to the constant judicial blur of DG3. Examples of this are abundant, like the splitting of cities between my province and Noldodan's when my province was created, with votes taking place, the domestic leader then calling them void, and et caetera...

We need something flexible, but clear and strong enough.

 

[donsig]

I think a permissive ruleset is preferable.

 

[DaveShack]

Finally, something which most if not all the adversarial people agree on!

 

[Sarevok]

I would rather have a permissive ruleset.

 

[Noldodan]

Well, after a day with no dissenting votes, I say we put it to an official poll.

 

[donsig]

Ok, how many of you who want a permissive ruleset now wanted a restrictive ruleset for DGIV? (Just wondering...)

 

[ravensfire]

Ok, how many of you who want a permissive ruleset now wanted a restrictive ruleset for DGIV? (Just wondering...)

Sometimes, (and I'm mangling a quote here), the only thing worse than finding out what people want, is giving it to them.

-- Ravensfire

 

[DaveShack]

Well, after a day with no dissenting votes, I say we put it to an official poll.

Actually, I wasn't thinking of this question in terms of polling, rather it should be used to guide us through discussions of the actual laws. I already started a discussion on a proposed Article N which explicitly makes the ruleset permissive, and have a plan within a plan for wording certain articles very carefully.