(11-21-2012, 01:48 AM)plloyd1010 Wrote: I don't know what Mike's intentions were, and PY's only partially. Since PY is on the forum, perhaps he might enlighten us, or at least me, as to what the intended operation context of the penal units is and how he thinks this was accomplished in RW and HoSU. "As for me and my house", we error on the side of history, so long as it doesn't mess up the system.
PLloyd: well, I didn't have any "intentions" save for trying to understand the rules as set forth in Section 10 of RW in response to the Original Post - and I'm not sure how one might infer otherwise. So I am afraid you will have to remain in the dark regarding how APL did or did not accomplish meshing game rules with "reality" or "history" (history according to whom?) as I have no and made no attempt to offer anything perspicacious along those lines. I simply tried to interpret
vide infra paragraphs #2 and #3 in light of the (given) language of paragraph #1.
Part of the problem with having, in my judgment, frequently poorly written rules (c.f. the recent discussion here on OBA), is that determining the mind of the lawgiver becomes difficult if not impossible (hence, for example, whether paragraph #3 was really intended to determine what DIS-not-adjacent units must do or did so accidentally as it were: as per my query in the later part of my earlier post in this thread). Camp's reply seems to suggest that he is far more confident that paragraph #3 was definitive and intentional ... and that might be so. I just didn't share that confidence, necessarily, unless the question had been "officially" clarified earlier.
