Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Wow, this exploded since I posted it. I'm going to respond to a few posts in chronological order

Timmah wrote:
Its kinda funny, because you write up this huge post on how RAW people flame you constantly and use personal attacks. Yet that is all your entire post is directed at the RAW people.

I didn't say anything about flaming or use of personal attacks. I did list some nearly verbatim quotes used by RAW advocates to explain why they play the way I did. Are you now accusing me of flaming and making a personal attack?

Heres the deal:
Most of the RAW people for most discussions say they would just have a discussion/dice off before games to figure out how to play it.

They don't usually hold to their strong RAW rulings irl.

Most don't, and I acknowledged that in my post. Not to be snotty, but did you even read it?

But heres the thing, you can have (or should be able to) a argument online to determine what RAW is, and even if it gets heated its not in a game. I don't understand why you care if people argue about something over 10+ pages. Is it hurting you in any way? Heck they aren't even stalling a game or being a jerk to their opponent. So your argument against it is, someone was a jerk to you over the internet? LOL

Again, did you read my post? My argument was that perhaps we can understand why people argue so passionatly, and that can help us all deal with each other more effectively.

On a final note, there is just as many if not more personal attacks that get flung around by the RAI group.

Ironically most of the normal crew in there doesn't really get into personal attacks. Its usually the guy who comes in once a week or something, sees something is played differently than how he does it/wants to do it, and then calls everyone an idiot.

On an ironic side note, responding a suggestion that an overly cynical and/or anti-social attitude might cause some of the virulence in YMDC with venom and what seems to me like paranoia actually kind of supports my theory.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bat Manuel wrote:It baffles my mind that all too often rules lawyers argue for the wording, but real lawyers argue for intent. Trying to go strictly by wording without looking for the intent seems to me as if the player doesn't care to figure out how the designers wanted the game to be played. I know GW is 99% at fault for writing the rules that way and failing to answer any questions, but I feel that RAW Zombies (TM) have fallen onto this path of not even trying to decipher why certain rules are in place and just looking for little keywords in the texts that they deem so important.

that's very much my point in RAW w/ context vs. literal RAW. Well put.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:

Polonius wrote: I think we're seeing a new conflict, that between "ultra-literalist" RAW and "Contextual" RAW. . . I think that many posters that are RAW fans are actually either horribly cynical of gamer's intentions or almost afraid to be able to reach compromise absent some authoritarian truth.

Which group from the first sentence does the second sentence apply to?

I'm sorry, I mean the most literal possible RAW advocates.

As for context that requires text, or facts. Or Orks, apparently.

We have context. We have a rule book, ~16 playable codices, a few FAQs and a decade of continually revised but similar rules for 40k.

I have always found it easier to play with random people when using stricter interpretations.
Leaping is my new favorite example. I do not build my lists for random games using it, as I cannot find RAW support for anything other than 3" radius during assaults. Many think that is nit-picking.
I am more than willing to discuss/debate this in YMDC. I have no intention of having such a debate at a random game. I will, however, point out to any other Tyranid players that Leaping can be an issue.

As someone else said, having your opponent want to play by the actual rules should not be surprising, and if you deny them that it is unsportsman like. Especially when the only responses that can legitimately be brought against them is "You are nit-picking", "It used to work", or worse, "They did not mean to leave/change/ignore that when they wrote it".

This is actually a pretty great example. Why on earth would leaping not give a 12" charge? Because the rules don't literally say that? There is adequate context to show that the writers meant a 12" charge, this isn't mystical mind reading.

If you know that "technically" something cannot be done, no matter how silly it sounds, and you do it anyway, calling you a cheater is a pretty tame response.

1/4" can (and often does) win or lose a game, and you think questioning "rules" brought to the table is too much attention to detail?

(and the "you" I use is not meant for anyone in particular, it is to differentiate from myself, because I do nit-pick - for a living, and have no problem with others who do)

nit picking has it's place. There's no doubt about it. 40k isn't always one of them. The rules aren't written to a standard to support them and there is often more than enough contextual information to make a ready interpretation possible.

And here's how I flip it around: if you know something isn't literally allowed by the precise wording, but it's fairly easily shown what was intended, how is following the technical meaning in any way helpful? How does that not just make the nitpicker something of a boor?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Thor665 wrote:

To sum up, I see the "bullying" in YMDC as no worse then the "bullying" intrinsic in the misanthropic labels hurled around in the very first post of this thread. To one side RAW is very important, to the starter of this thread it is not, and all of us fall on various points across the scale, and, in the final analysis, as long as we have fun and don't force people to play "our way" if they don't want to then what's the difference if I want to debate something for thirty-nine pages?

My thoughts,
Thor.

"The bullying intrinsic in the misanthropic labels hurled around.." that my friends, is pretty classic stuff. Particularly since my post included no labels and went out of it's way to do so.

I also don't think I suggested that debating was wrong, bad, or should stop. I was merely wondering why it was done. I really don't see where the hostility is coming from. Or where the idea that RAW isn't important to me came from. Or really, what post you actually read because it seems very different than the one I wrote.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:I make a living working with details. So do the writers of any game system.

I am not espousing that the writer's intent is irrelevant. What I am saying is that, as a person who has to write clearly - and be held accountable for the words that I write - intent is easily misconstrued, deliberately or not. Text can be misread, but careful reading covers most of that. Rereading and discourse generally covers the rest.

If the intent was other than what was written, someone and generally a few someones, have made mistakes. So if, to follow your example, the codex writer said, "I meant XXXX", I would indeed ask, "Then why did you write YYYY".

And the FAQs never being up to par is impossible for RAW/tourney crowd? I call shenanigans. See: MTG rules databases. Many games, at least as complex as this one manage to keep their issues textually verifiable.

As for the (ironic, given your assertions,) arrogance of the religious that you imply, I will just let you continue thinking that is "RAW crue" that it comes from.

The writers of 40k deal with details, but not nearly to the extent that you do. They're not writing medical procedurals or anything, they're writing gaming rules. Acting as if every word they chose was deliberate and reasoned is simply not something that can be backed up by the evidence.

I think that if the rules don't read exactly the way the author intended, than mistakes were made. Unlike you, I think that mistakes are possible and happen all the time. We've been told that FAQs aren't really priority, as are, for that matter, actually writing rules.

There is some juice to the idea that RAW literalism is akin to scriptural fundamentalism. Both tend to got lost in the forest for the trees, as my Tax Law professor used to say. Like 40k rules or the Bible, the Internal Revenue Code is actually pretty complicated. It's also pretty poorly written over a period of years by multiple authors. The key at all times is to keep in mind the big picture, the overall context, and if you see something that doesn't make sense... learn to move past it.

Janthkin wrote:There is a principle in statutory interpretation that you read the law so as to achieve a not-absurd result.

Interpretation of GW's rules would benefit from a similar principle.

Janthkin wrote:The flip side of the coin is often equally applicable, though.

For example, it is pretty apparent that the Valkyrie/Vendetta is meant to transport models. However, the combination of the embark/disembark rules and the skimmer rules mean that, technically, no model will be able to board the thing during the course of a game.

First question: what is the rational conclusion? That a) it's a transport vehicle meant only to transport models under a very narrow set of circumstances; or b) that the RAW does not properly cover the vehicle?

Second question: how would you play it in a game?

Third question: do your answers differ between the first and second questions, and if so, why?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bodichi wrote:The saddedst part of all of this is that with minimal attention to forums just like this one GW could completely fix all of these issues. I bet with the lure of some free product they could have certain people foaming at the mouth for the chance to tidy up rules issues.

Sad? Sure. But GW has no interest in writing an air-tight set of rules. Moreover, I really don't want them paying attention to YMDC these days - it'll just fuel their determination not to bother trying.

There are legitimate holes in the rules that need patching. GW should fix these.
There are problems caused by interaction with really old rules. GW will fix these, over the course of time.
There are "problems" caused by semantic analysis. GW can ignore these as irrelevant - if the problem isn't going to come up in an actual game, or no one will actually play that way, it's not much of a problem. Make a small note, maybe, and change the wording in the next edition.

This pretty much explains how it is in real life, and you are obviously correct. Unfortunately pa lot of eople are stubborn and will not listen.

I don't know any country that applies it's rules (law) purely and strictly as RAW. Why? Because it has been proven that is doesn't work that way in reality and it is unrealistic to expect it to work that way. There will always be unforseen issues where RAW doesn't hold up.


One (real life) example:

An unnamed city's train station has been bothered so much by the local hobo's using it as a camping ground to sleep in that the city has made the new rule (which count as law) that it is "forbidden to sleep inside the station". This rule was clearly made with the intention to get rid of the sleeping hobo's.

Now one day an exhausted traveler has to wait another 15 minutes for his train, so he sits down on one of the benches, closes his eyes for a few seconds and falls asleep.

Will they book him for breaking the law? The RAW hardline crowd would say "yes", if I have to believe everything I've read in this thread.

Well let me tell you that there is no way any judge will sentence this man/woman for sleeping inside the station in this instance (if the traveler would get booked in the first place, which almost certainly will not happen either).

And what about someone already sleeping in a train before it rolls into the station?

How exactly do you define "sleeping" (in the context of this rule)?

.........

So if RAW doesn't apply all the time to the set of rules that are your own country's justice system, then why should it automatically apply to a miniatures game? The main problem is that there is no arbiter with the authority to rule on an issue and have it apply everywhere such a rules issue occurs. I agree GW should just make a ruling on a few of the bigger issues (like the Valkyrie obviously), but if they refuse there is nothing any of us can do about that.

Btw, I'm more in it for the hobby than for the actual games, so I don't spend a lot of time debating specific YMDC rules stuff (never actually, but I do read about rules issues and try to keep up with them), but I'm curious: does the 40K rulebook literally say something similar to "the rules in this book should be applied as written, and that is the only valid interpretation of the rules"?

If not, then RAW could be viewed as not even covering itself.

What I'm also curious about: has it ever happened that one of these bigger rules issues occurred at one of the (few) big/official GW tournaments like a Games Day or a 'Ard Boys finals? If so, what did they decide? And do actual GW people judge those games? (I guess not)

One state's "open container policy" was so vague it referenced any open container. You could get the same penalty for driving with an open beer or a piece of tupperware. Good stuff, and completely on topic

Zomro wrote:As far as "arguing just to be right" goes. That's the purpose of a debate, is it not? The point of a debate is to discuss and attempt to bring the other side in agreeing with your view.

Not exactly. Healthy debate is to be persuasive, based on correctness, not "right" by self-fiat. Unfortunately, YMDC has precious little discussion or persuasion from what I've seen.
____

The Green Git wrote:But how do you deploy within 2" of an access point on a model with a 5" high flying stand?

In my group, we would place the model on its landing gear by removing the stand when embarking / disembarking, then opening the doors/lowering the ramp. That would appear to be the simplest TLOS/model-driven solution.
____

MagickalMemories wrote:Shoot, I don't even go in and READ the YMDC threads anymore, I get so ticked off at the way people treat each other.

Welcome to the club!

I still read YMDC just to stay informed on the ambiguous issues and know the reasoning on either side. When it comes to game time, I always defer to whatever interpretation my opponent has of the issue, but because I am informed on the issue, I'm prepared for either ruling.

For competitive play the answer is far simplier, defer to the TO/Judge no matter how right/wrong they can be. Again, being informed on the issues lets you prepare for any eventuality.

TBD wrote:So if RAW doesn't apply all the time to the set of rules that are your own country's justice system, then why should it automatically apply to a miniatures game?

Without trying to be nasty in any way, this statement is a perfect example of the misconception that many posters seem to hold about YMDC.


Most of the posters in there, regardless of how much they may argue for RAW in a discussion of the rules, don't try to play by strict RAW.


We do try to apply it to discussions of the rules, because it's the only set benchmark we have. Most of the time trying to devine the writer's intent can give you multiple possible answers, and all of them are going to be nothing more than a guess. To make it even more fuzzy, even when we do have a statement of the writer's intent, it's subject to change with no notice (Codex: DH vs Codex: Assassins, anyone?)

Sure, sticking just to RAW can also give multiple answers if the rules are somewhat ambiguous... but they're all answers that can be backed up by pointing to something solid. When your opponent asks why you think that rule works as you say it does, you have something you can point to beyond 'Well, despite what he write, I think the writer actually meant...'


What we generally try to do ('we' being the people interested in actual discussion. I can't speak for those who just give their point of view and brand anyone who disagrees as a cheater) in YMDC is examine what the rules actually say. Once you know that, whether the result is clear or ambiguous, you have all the information you need to discuss potential issues with an opponent once you're preparing to put miniatures on the table.

So by arguing RAW, nobody is saying that you have to play the game that way. They're just trying to determine what the rules actually are, so that they can decide how they want to play it and so that they won't be surprised when they come across someone who plays it differently.



I'm a little confused about the idea of 'hyper-literal RAW' as presented in this thread though. Taking single statements out of the rules and trying to apply them out of context is not any kind of RAW. Context is such an important part of the language... the moment you remove it, you're left with a meaningless statement, not RAW.

The Green Git wrote:First and foremost in my mind is this is Toy Soldiers here, folks. We are not discussing Bills before Congress, technical manuals describing the operation of an F-22, or anything nearly as earth shattering. It's rules for pushing around little plastic and metal toys.

first off, I'd like to rebut this comment a little. Technically speaking, as I don't spend 4 or 5 hours a week operating F-22s, the rules for "pushing around little plastic and metal toys" are several orders of magnitude more important to me than an F-22 tech spec manual ever could be! Just because our hobby is frivolous doesn't mean our investments (both time and money) in it are.

Secondly, I'd like to bring attention to the fact that the participants of this thread are doing precisely what most participants in YMDC (myself included) do; taking part in an intellectual exploration that they likely have no stake in simply for the discussion's own sake. I say that because so many posters here have stated they don't even visit YMDC, and so (excluding what sound like the occasional hurt feeling) should have no investment in it's goings on or future.

I don't think I would be too far off suspecting many fellow members of this so-called RAW crew don't actually play the way they argue in the forums. I know that, despite taking part in conversations regarding the finer points of putting Grey Knights in a Valkyrie, I would actually be pretty ambivalent over a FLGS player doing so in a game. I may even compliment him on thinking of a game choice even the writers likely hadn't considered. Because, again, most of YMDC (excluding all the very minor rules clarification threads) is intellectual experiments, trying to glean details where often there are few or none. Some get a little emotionally involved, but such will be the case no matter the conversation. I promise you there are heated arguments occuring daily about the 'proper' way to vent a pie, or code a login page, or assemble a cabinet. Human beings often have a habit of getting emotionally vested in their side of an argument, we should probably all be used to it now.

While writing this post, I went back to find whoever had mentioned Statutory Interpretation, but didn't see the post. In any case, the important thing to keep in mind is that this is a judges responsibility, which are very much missing from our analogy to 40k. This is why we players make do with compromise, or d6'ing it. This is also why judges are usually involved in tournaments; they should be in charge of the, in all honesty rather few, hotly contested rules issues and if it's a well run tournament, all the expected issues (like Valkyries and SoB russes and so on) are pre-arranged so everyone is prepared going in.

I imagine Yak would be best equipped to answer this, but I often wonder why GW is so slow at putting out FAQs. I doubt it's an issue of them wanting perfection in the results, as if that were the case they would likely need far fewer FAQs in the first place I personally would be satisfied seeing FAQs for everything, no matter the actual answers. Just an official, quotable result to end the debate so we can all move on. The problem is, for every rules grey area, there are a least a few interpretations. When I play people from other areas (either while travelling, or at tournaments), we both are so used to our locales' solution that we're surprised they handled it differently. Now, there's no way for us to reconcile it easily, besides d6'ing (which I find is often not a very satisfying solution for anybody), so any word from GW about how it's supposed to work would make things far easier, and no surprises. Besides, I'm really not sure how difficult the FAQ creation process could be; a guy spends the morning writing down all the rules queries that show up consistently on YMDC, the afternoon on warseer, the next morning on BnC, etc. Sits down for a half hour with whoever wrote the codex, gets their call, drafts it, and posts it. I'm not sure how the process could take even 1 person more than a week. Or why GW doesn't have some kind of FAQ submission system; every time a question is submitted, say, 50 times they answer it on the site. Problem solved.

The Defenestrator wrote:I often wonder why GW is so slow at putting out FAQs.

GW isn't in the business of supporting the stuff you already paid for - GW is in the business of selling you a new Rulebooks, Codices, and models. FAQs generate no new sales, but cost money to produce, so it's a complete waste of their time.

Plus, guys like Yakface are willing to do it for FREE, at an excruciating level of detail that GW would not ever attempt.

The Defenestrator wrote:...but I often wonder why GW is so slow at putting out FAQs.

Because they do. Not. Care. Their more recent FAQ's even say that they're not official and players can do what they want. Their motto for rules is "near enough is good enough", and once done they don't go back to it again unless they can see a sale in it.

Call me a jaded cynic as much as you like, but to GW the rules are simply a necessary inconvenience - something they have to do in order to sell models. Note that it's something they have to do, not something they have to do well. The only time intent comes into rules creation is when they purposefully overpower a unit to sell more of it, or underpower a unit so that they can up-power it later whilst underpowering the thing that they previous overpowered.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Because they do. Not. Care.

I think sometimes I want so badly for this to be untrue that I forget.

The official line on FAQs was that they don't like to put them out too often because it confuses people.

insaniak wrote:lots of good stuff

insaniak wrote:The official line on FAQs was that they don't like to put them out too often because it confuses people.

And what's your opinion on this cop-ou... uhh... I mean on this explanation, insaniak?

Well, to be fair to GW, it sort of made sense before they invented version numbers and written dates.

I do recall quite a few threads in YMDC during 3rd and 4th edition where people were caught out by FAQs no longer saying what they had said a week previous, with no notification from GW that they had changed.


And, you know, if they're going to have to add version numbers and dates to the page, well, that's more work. They'll have to put on more staff, and that means that prices will go up.

So really, we should be happy that GW don't produce regular FAQs. It's for our own good.

I think part of the issue is blocking the two camps (RAI and RAW).....into two segregated camps. I imagine that the difference is not so much a black/white contrast but more of a continuum...

RAW-------------------You Are Somewhere In Here-------------------RAI

I think a vast majority of the players (Both those whom lean RAW and those whom lean RAI) would have issue with the extremes of their camps. I don't believe a game with a purist RAW player would be any more enjoyable than playing a purist RAI player. The only thing we are left with is discussion on specific ambiguous rules that force the discussion. If you look at the issue in that perspective and drop the confrontational RAW v. RAI angle....the discussion will be much more elevated.

This is not much different than other subjects;

Ayn Rand------------You Are Somewhere In Here-----------------------Karl Marx

You could simply join a label (Rand or Marx) and attempt to be a purist....but discussing each subject on it's own merits will get more accomplished.

I'd just like to point out, as a strict-RAW guy, that I play about 95%+ as the the rules literally state, and also that I never have yet called someone a cheater for having a wrong interpretation, unless I have reason to believe they are trying to manipulate the situation to their advantage.

What about when the intent of the rule is so obviously opposed to what the rules actually say?

The only time I see that as the case is in LOS. I don't think it was meant to say that a vehicle's LOS is equal to the gun, with no width or diameter given, hence every vehicle ever shot by another vehicle is obscured, unless the barrel is more than 50% of the facing.

Valkyries is a more common example - I allow people to disembark 2" + the height of the base. Its your choice to model it as it comes in the box, but I would rarely penalise someone for that foolishness.

As for the recurring Terminator Librarian nonsense, what is that? Show me, in the Codex, where you can find one, because I only see the option to buy Terminator Armour for a Librarian. In MY understanding of English, when you add an option to the model, it gets added to the wargear.

Polonius wrote:

Thor665 wrote:

To sum up, I see the "bullying" in YMDC as no worse then the "bullying" intrinsic in the misanthropic labels hurled around in the very first post of this thread. To one side RAW is very important, to the starter of this thread it is not, and all of us fall on various points across the scale, and, in the final analysis, as long as we have fun and don't force people to play "our way" if they don't want to then what's the difference if I want to debate something for thirty-nine pages?

My thoughts,
Thor.

"The bullying intrinsic in the misanthropic labels hurled around.." that my friends, is pretty classic stuff. Particularly since my post included no labels and went out of it's way to do so.

I also don't think I suggested that debating was wrong, bad, or should stop. I was merely wondering why it was done. I really don't see where the hostility is coming from. Or where the idea that RAW isn't important to me came from. Or really, what post you actually read because it seems very different than the one I wrote.

Polonius wrote:
It's not shocking, I mean, gaming tends to attract the less extroverted, and there's no shortage of Misanthropy here or in the hobby in general. But I think that this has helped my understand that RAW fans cling to it to prevent rules interpretations be gained through bullying or influence.

Emphasis mine.

I'm sorry if what I said came across as though I hadn't read your post. When I read the section that included the emphasized area I noted above I felt that what you were writing was fairly clearly directed towards the RAW crowd. I'm guessing by your strong reaction that that wasn't your intent, but at the same time then neither was it my intent to misrepresent you. I felt I had written a post that did try to discuss the "why" of the RAW crowd and also expressed some thoughts as to why some people poo poo it. I feel when you called it as "classic stuff" you were suggesting that I was somehow straw manning you or misquoting you or something, and for that I guess I'll just plead that I misunderstood what you meant when you threw around the misanthrope label - clearly you didn't mean it for the RAW crowd but maybe for all of us in general? Though I still feel that's an equal level of bullying, as my post stated.

In clarification,
Thor.

I know from the RAI crowd, I see quite a bit of the 'I don't like this rule and you're a bad person if you follow it' form of bullying and I see that almost everywhere there's a rules discussion.

Thor665 wrote:

Polonius wrote:
It's not shocking, I mean, gaming tends to attract the less extroverted, and there's no shortage of Misanthropy here or in the hobby in general. But I think that this has helped my understand that RAW fans cling to it to prevent rules interpretations be gained through bullying or influence.

Emphasis mine.

I'm sorry if what I said came across as though I hadn't read your post. When I read the section that included the emphasized area I noted above I felt that what you were writing was fairly clearly directed towards the RAW crowd. I'm guessing by your strong reaction that that wasn't your intent, but at the same time then neither was it my intent to misrepresent you. I felt I had written a post that did try to discuss the "why" of the RAW crowd and also expressed some thoughts as to why some people poo poo it. I feel when you called it as "classic stuff" you were suggesting that I was somehow straw manning you or misquoting you or something, and for that I guess I'll just plead that I misunderstood what you meant when you threw around the misanthrope label - clearly you didn't mean it for the RAW crowd but maybe for all of us in general? Though I still feel that's an equal level of bullying, as my post stated.

In clarification,
Thor.

When I used the term misanthropy, I was refering more to a general distrust/dislike of people by gamers in general. When you wrote "misanthropic lables," were you referring to labels that I used in a way that was misanthropic, or simply my labeling of people as misanthropes? If the former, I"m not sure where your seeing them. If the latter, than I'm sorry, but it's not bullying to call people that claim to not trust/like most people misanthropes. It might be inaccurate, but it's not bullying.

I don't think it's shocking or anything to state that a lot of people online are jerks or misanthropes. I wasn't referring to any group with that label, other than perhaps gamers in general or internet users in general. What I read was you interpreting a post that was meant to explain what I saw as reasons for behavior as bullying, when it wasn't even advocating a position, merely offering a theory.

Even my reference to bullying wasn't in regards to the behavior anybody, but that people see RAW as a bulwark against bullying, a theory that seems to have some support from the hardliners in the RAW camp.

I also think I've misrepresented myself slightly by referring to "RAW advocates," as if that doesn't include me. Of course I advocate playing the rules as written. Where I draw the line is in assigning more value to the words of a text than to it's greater meaning. So, I'm really speaking of the literalists, or perhaps even RAW zealots. I was, ironically, trying not to cause offense.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

skyth wrote:I know from the RAI crowd, I see quite a bit of the 'I don't like this rule and you're a bad person if you follow it' form of bullying and I see that almost everywhere there's a rules discussion.

I think there's some of that, but that's a big part of why I wrote the OP. I think that most RAI folk (including those like me that follow RAW to the extent that it makes sense) look at the rules as a flawed product. Rules interpretations are settled by a combination of RAW, making sure nobody gets a huge benefit or totally screwed, what seems fun, what makes sense based on all other rules, or simply not caring. When somebody tells me that, for example, leaping Warriors dont' get a 12" because of some quirk in the writing, that makes no sense to me, because I can't see why any person would enforce that rule.

Well, now I think I understand better. It's simply a psychological compulsion, a way of dealing with the world. I feel comfortable using common sense and negotiation to resolve a rules question, but a lot of people aren't, and so see RAW as a way of bringing order to chaos. Knowing that, I can understand where they're coming from. I know it's not being a jerk, or wanting to ruin anybody's good time, or getting advantage: it's just a way of viewing the world. And that helps me, and I think it will help the RAW hardliners when more people realize it.

I've been thinking about the nature of rules interpretations, and I've realized that RAW is about finding the correct answer, when most people want the best answer. things like the INAT FAQ seek the best answer, which often isn't the correct one, by RAW, but for most gamers that's more valid.

Firstly, very sorry if I repeat anything from previous posts – I kinda skimmed a lot of the previous posts.

This kinda stuff always makes me laugh, as the camps of RAW/Conceptual RAW/RAI very much match the various approaches to Statutory Interpretation that have been determined by the courts in interpreting new laws imposed by governments.

Breaking this down:
- RAW (strict) can be defined as “The Literal Rule” – a principal of statutory interpretation that provides a Judge may only consider what the Legislation actually says, and may not give consideration to what the Legislation might mean. To do this, the Judge must give the legislation its literal meaning, that is, their plain, ordinary or everyday meaning, even if the outcome is unjust or undesirable.

- RAW (Contextual) can be defined as “the Golden Rule” – a principal of statutory interpretation that says a Judge should use Only the words of the legislation as written, UNLESS they produce an obviously ridiculous or absurd result.

- RAI (in its purest sense) Is close to the “mischief rule” - an old legislative interpretation rule, and provides a judge a basis for going behind the words of the legislation to actually look at what problem the legislation was trying to fix. The actual wording is less important. This could also be considered a ‘purposive approach’ – that is “when interpreting rules, an interpretation that promotes or furthers the purposes of those rules is to be preferred over a literal interpretation that defeats or interrupts that purpose”. Importantly, this is not ‘house rules’.

The influence of these rules of statutory interpretation fall in and out of fashion on a regular basis within the courts (at least in Australia, and I presume in the UK also), depending on how activist the courts are. So the fact that a particular person follows one view or another does not make them wrong or right . It is perfectly normal for there to be legitimate differences in the approach to how rules are interpreted. If this wasn’t the case, then Lawyers would not exist!

So (a long winded way of getting to the point), my view is that none of the various YMDC posters are inherently agressive or hostile because of their approach to interpreting the rulebooks. It is the unfortunate anonymity of the interwebs that allows people to vent without consequence, and as a result, many vent unnecessarily. It is so much easier to forget manners on the internet, because who is here to judge us?

I have a supplementary question for the crowd – is there a territorial bias on the application of RAW v RAW (context) v RAI? My limited understanding of the US legal system (from TV mainly), seems to indicate a very legalistic, literal interpretation of the words of the law, whilst in Australia the purposive approach is frequently used by the courts.

Have we found that more Yanks are RAW whilst more Ozzies/Poms are RAW (context)/RAI?

Just read this, and found I rambled, my apologies.
Cheers

With the US's independent judiciary, the courts can more or less look at whatever they want in interpreting legislation. Virtually all cases look to what's called legislative history where they try to determine what congress meant. In addition, there are many guiding principles of common law, and I've read more than one case where the court has essentially said "well, under the old law Congress meant X, so until they clarify, that's what we say they meant."

In application, there are many "letter of the law" situations: a person that appears sober but has BAC over 0.08% is guilty of driving under the influence, even if not actually impaired; sex with a minor under 13 in ohio is illegal even if you though they were of legal age (16). So, in a state court a criminal defendant will likely be nailed for violating the letter, if not spirit of the law. Even then, it's likely that it's often easier to take a plea rather than appeal to the higher courts.

On the other thing there will always be hostility on the internet, but it's generally accepted that it's a little hotter in YMDC, and there has to a reason for it.

Frazzled wrote:lets maintain Dakka Rule #1 on this thread. Politeness will be required from all parties discussing this.

Ok, but what about:

JonnyDD wrote:the 40k YMDC stuff is almost entirely TFG-manufactured BS.

That seems like a completely general, hopelessly off-base and wonderfully inflammatory statement to make. Certainly not what one might call 'polite'.

Thanks Polonius, interesting! Sounds like theres not too much different in the US & Aus court system.

Re the 'heated' aspect of YMDC - Is it perhaps that in this arena, there are clear personal preferences? I want it to be so, so Im going to read it in the manner that suits me? And I will agressively defend my position, because it is favourable?

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Frazzled wrote:lets maintain Dakka Rule #1 on this thread. Politeness will be required from all parties discussing this.

Ok, but what about:

JonnyDD wrote:the 40k YMDC stuff is almost entirely TFG-manufactured BS.

That seems like a completely general, hopelessly off-base and wonderfully inflammatory statement to make. Certainly not what one might call 'polite'.

As far as I've been able to tell, Rule #1 is enforced mostly against unusually rude behavior, not measured against any set community standard, but against each posters normal pattern of behavior. If a person is normally rude, abrasive, and condescending, than it takes something really outrageous to trigger a problem. When a poster is normally polite, reasoned, and well meaning, nearly any breach of etiquette gets a PM warning.

That was a really long way of saying "I agree with HBMC", Polonius.

darkkt wrote:Thanks Polonius, interesting! Sounds like theres not too much different in the US & Aus court system.

Re the 'heated' aspect of YMDC - Is it perhaps that in this arena, there are clear personal preferences? I want it to be so, so Im going to read it in the manner that suits me? And I will agressively defend my position, because it is favourable?

I think that's part of it, but only in individual rulings. When you read enough threads, you tend to see the same players on the same sides, neither of whom have any stake in the outcome. I honestly think, as I've stated here, that it comes from a way people feel more comfortable with the rules. Some are comfortable with the idea that common sense and fair play will solve most issues for everybody's benefit, while others are more comfortable seeking a final answer, regardless of outcome.

I think at it's broadest, there are those (like me) that think that rules debates are fun exercises, but they should be played the way that makes the game as fun as possible, combining balance, consistency, practicality, etc. There are others who think that rules debates should seek to find the correct ruling based solely on the text, and that rule should be used regardless of how it plays. There are also plenty of people in between.

One of the reasons for this split I think is how an individual sees other people, himself, and their interactions. A person that is less comfortable negotiating, or is suspicious of others naturally, might be more comfortable knowing there is an absolute, correct answer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

H.B.M.C. wrote:That was a really long way of saying "I agree with HBMC", Polonius.

It is, but I have a reputation of eloquence and wit to maintain. For me to agree with a notorious curmudgeon like yourself, I must do so in a dignified manner.

Polonius wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:the 40k YMDC stuff is almost entirely TFG-manufactured BS.

As far as I've been able to tell, Rule #1 is enforced mostly against unusually rude behavior, not measured against any set community standard, but against each posters normal pattern of behavior. If a person is normally rude, abrasive, and condescending, than it takes something really outrageous to trigger a problem. When a poster is normally polite, reasoned, and well meaning, nearly any breach of etiquette gets a PM warning.

Hmm... If this is true, then perhaps I shouldn't have been self-moderated my posting behaviors, simply to have more freedom to flame back? I can't imagine that this is how Dakka wants things to work, but who knows. It *seems* to me that my life on Dakka is better for self-moderating, and my annoyance levels are much farther down, but if all I'm doing is making it easier to have Rule 1 enforced against me, I'll stop immediately!

As for the "YMDC TFG BS" quote, I made it in another thread a while ago, and it has since moved into the signature of Uriel's Flame. It's quoted all over Dakka. While I intended a very small amount of hyperbole when I originally wrote it, I still stand by that quote today.

How can you stand by that quote when you will KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!