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