Epistle on Inconsistancy and Punning

From: Aron Wall (aron_at_wall.org)
Date: Sat Mar 02 2002 - 22:26:21 PST


Karl Low wrote:

> Point 1: The rule does not restrict bad puns from occuring before, it just
> says there haven't been any, is being wrong equivalent to making the ruleset
> inconsistent?
>

Yes it is.  Take the sample round:

#1: "I like the color red"
#2: "No previous rules have mentioned the color red.

This is an inconsistancy, plain and simple, just as much as if it had been the
other way around:

#1: "No future rules will mention the color red"
#2: "I hate the color red"

Inconsistancy is a time-symmetric relationship, even though the effects of
inconsistancy in terms of INVALIDITY are time-asymmetric.  If a rule says that
another rule does not do something, but that other rule does do it, that is as
inconsistant as inconsistant can be.  Now there is a difference between being
wrong and being inconsistant.  Take as examples:

#1: There is no color that goes by the name of red.
#2: This rule does not mention redness in any way.

The first is wrong, but it is not inconsistant with any fantasy rules.  The
second is equally wrong, but it is inconsistant with a fantasy rule.  Now there
is yet another kind of inconsistancy, in which two rules are inconsistant but
about something else.  For example:

#1: The magical country of Jubith contains unicorns.
#2: Jabith has no living creatures in it.

These two rules would be inconsistant with one another, but it is because they
disagree about something else outside of themselves.  The distinction I am
trying to draw here is that between being inconsistant with WHAT A RULE SAYS,
and being inconsistant with THE RULE ITSELF.  However both forms of
inconsistancy cause invalidity.  For the purposes of the R.O.'s there is no
distinction between form and content.  Really, this seems rather obvious to me.

>
> Point 2: Which VALID rule (since those are the only ones we are concerned
> about for the ruleset) has the bad pun?  I would suggest that given a
> liberal interpretation of the rules (which is what is required) then "cowed"
> as it has been used is not a bad pun.  If a pun at all, it's actually a good
> one since the language doesn't have to be altered to make it work (such as
> my "herd" or "udder-wise")

What is a bad pun is very much in the eye of the beholder.  If I think that
cowed was actually a bad pun, that is my perogative as Judge, and there is very
little in the way of an objective criterion you can use to criticize my
decision.  I do not agree with your standard that a pun is good if and only if
it requires no alteration of the language--if you had specified this in your
rule as a criterion for badness, your rule would have been VALID, but since you
leave it at "bad", you are giving the Judge a lot of leeway in interpretation.

Your suggestion is that under the principle of liberal interpretations, that if
there is any reasonable interpretation of "bad" under which "cowed" is not a
bad pun, then I have an obligation to use that interpretation of the word that
would make your rule VALID.  I deny this.  These are my reasons:

1) For any pun, there is probably some interpretation of the word "bad" that
would be reasonable that would let the pun in.  "Bad" is a very vague word in
the absence of any clarification or interpretation.  If your argument worked,
your rule would have almost no powers of restriction.

2) Then again, what are these good puns that you are referring to?  It seems to
me that it could be seriously argued that there are only puns that are bad in a
lame way and puns that are bad in a brilliant, makes-me-want-to-groan way.  If
you think I'm joking, well I am, but I'm also serious in that there is a
spectrum of puns, and both sides could be called bad in their own way.

3) I deny this requirement of a liberal interpretation.  While this is rather
unorthodox of me, I place a much greater emphasis on the powers of the Judge to
interpret restrictions then most members do.  While I do accept that if there
are two manifestly or equally reasonable interpretations of a rule, that the
thing to do is usually to let future rules determine which of the two possible
interpretations is to be used, I do not believe that the Judge is not mandated
to do this.  When one of the possible interpretations seems more reasonable to
the Judge than the rest of the interpretations to a sufficient degree, I
believe that the Judge is allowed to pick that interpretation as "the"
interpretation.  Or, as is the case in this rule, when there is some sort of
qualifying adjactive such as "bad", the Judge is under no obligation whatsoever
to provide the most liberal reasonable interpretation, but is free to instead
use the interpretation that is most reasonable.

Well, agree or disagree, my ruling is that "cowed" is a bad pun, and that your
rule is INVALID.  If 2/3 of the committee believes that "cowed" is actually a
good pun, or that I ought to have allowed it on the grounds that it *might* be
a good pun (if this binds the Judge to say that it *is* a good pun), then you
have my blessings (though not my vote) in overturning the ruling.  But I think
it would be easier to just post another rule.

The Wizard

--
Rule Date: 2002-03-03 06:28:10 GMT


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST