Groups vs Rules

[c***@yahoo.com]

Sorry about posting this as a new topic, but Google Groups kept
rejecting my followup to the thread-in-progress, saying the Reference
header was too long.

It is quite possible that your group is unlike most other groups

and,

while your conclusions are valid for that group, they are not valid

for

most other groups.

If the rules alone produce balance then the group is IRRELEVANT
to ballance!

I don't think I've said that rules alone can produce balance. I've even
said that I don't think a perfectly balanced set of rules exist. What I
*have* said is that a good game system needs very little balancing
input from the group.

If you are NOT arguing that a set of rules that will produce
balance regardless of the group exists or can exist then what
the F**K are you arguing?

That Sea Wasp is wrong in arguing that any balance produced by the game
designers is irrelevant.

Cause that is the statement that you seem unwilling to accept,
that the rules BY THEMSELVES cannot creat balance.

Nope. I am unwilling to accept that only a group can provide balance
and that the original rules are irrelevant to creating balance.

So as long as a given ruleset is unbalanced for some group,
somewhere, sometime, that is following all the rules that
ruleset cannot be a counter-example to Sea Wasp's contention!

Which iteration of his contention?

Generally, in groups I have GMed (which could be broken into

roughly

five groups with almost no overlap: high school, junior college,

early

university, late university and online), players were usually happy
with their PCs being useful in an adventure.

Now, how is this relevant to Sea Wasp's point, since a character
being useful or getting spotlight time is ALSO a balance issue?

A character who is useless or forgotten is normally a problem caused by
(1) poor play or (2) the group creating characters by the rules and
assumptions of the game, but then not playing the game using those same
rules and/or assumptions. This assumes that the rules are not poorly
designed.

1) Rules alone cannot create ballance.

1a) A group alone cannot create balance.

2) Players and a GM can always create something that meets
their requirements and desires for ballance.

2a) A well-designed, tolerable balanced set of rules is easier to
tinker with than a poorly-designed, unbalanced set of rules.

Brandon

[Sea Wasp]

Post by c***@yahoo.com
Sorry about posting this as a new topic, but Google Groups kept
rejecting my followup to the thread-in-progress, saying the Reference
header was too long.

Let us all hail to Google's new improvements, which they didn't ask
us about. I complained to them about their new format when they were
beta-testing and they basically told me "too bad, we don't care, WE
like it."

Post by c***@yahoo.com

It is quite possible that your group is unlike most other groups

and,

while your conclusions are valid for that group, they are not valid

for

most other groups.

If the rules alone produce balance then the group is IRRELEVANT
to ballance!

I don't think I've said that rules alone can produce balance. I've even
said that I don't think a perfectly balanced set of rules exist. What I
*have* said is that a good game system needs very little balancing
input from the group.

And to that I would even agree. For a given group which has interest
in maintaining balance (whatever they consider balance to be), the
right set of tools will make the balancing easier to do.

What that "right set of tools" is will of course vary, rather widely,
for any given group.

Post by c***@yahoo.com
That Sea Wasp is wrong in arguing that any balance produced by the game
designers is irrelevant.

Cause that is the statement that you seem unwilling to accept,
that the rules BY THEMSELVES cannot creat balance.

Nope. I am unwilling to accept that only a group can provide balance
and that the original rules are irrelevant to creating balance.

This contradicts your statements earlier. You have said that you
accept, or at least do not deny, that rules by themselves cannot
create balance.

Unless the rules can do so, and we have just postulated above that
they cannot, THEN ONLY THE HUMAN COMPONENT -- the group -- can provide
it. The rules may facilitate this process or not, but the rules are
inert, incomplete, and inflexible without human input.

Post by c***@yahoo.com

1) Rules alone cannot create ballance.

1a) A group alone cannot create balance.

They most certainly can. The group, by itself, can simply play,
without any fixed or formal rules. This is an adult equivalent of
"Let's Pretend". If all the adults "play nice", there's no need for
any rules whatsoever except "let everyone have fun".

Post by c***@yahoo.com
2a) A well-designed, tolerable balanced set of rules is easier to
tinker with than a poorly-designed, unbalanced set of rules.

This is true. Though I would rather phrase it that a set of rules
which promotes whatever goals the group seems most interested in is
easier for them to use than one that does not. For instance, much as I
dislike them, both GURPS and Hero/Champs are excellent sets of tools
for many groups; they would be unsuitable for my group because they
don't do the jobs I need rules to do.

[Ed Chauvin IV]

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by c***@yahoo.com
Nope. I am unwilling to accept that only a group can provide balance
and that the original rules are irrelevant to creating balance.

This contradicts your statements earlier. You have said that you
accept, or at least do not deny, that rules by themselves cannot
create balance.

The above quote does not contradict what you object to. It can be
true that rules do not by themselves create balance without them being
irrelevant to creating balance.



Ed Chauvin IV

[Sea Wasp]

Post by Ed Chauvin IV
The above quote does not contradict what you object to. It can be
true that rules do not by themselves create balance without them being
irrelevant to creating balance.

They are relevant in the sense that they can be USED by groups to
create, or destroy, balance. But the rules themselves don't DO it, and
have no actual direct effect on whether balance exists or not. They
can just make it easier or harder to maintain.

[Ed Chauvin IV]

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Ed Chauvin IV
The above quote does not contradict what you object to. It can be
true that rules do not by themselves create balance without them being
irrelevant to creating balance.

They are relevant in the sense that they can be USED by groups to
create, or destroy, balance. But the rules themselves don't DO it, and
have no actual direct effect on whether balance exists or not. They
can just make it easier or harder to maintain.

Now you're just being stupid.

If you have a set of perfectly balanced rules, the only way for the
rules to not have an effect on whether balance exists is for the
players to ignore and/or break the rules. Your argument is equivalent
to saying that language doesn't help people communicate, because
people can break language rules.



Ed Chauvin IV

[Sea Wasp]

Post by Ed Chauvin IV

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Ed Chauvin IV
The above quote does not contradict what you object to. It can be
true that rules do not by themselves create balance without them being
irrelevant to creating balance.

They are relevant in the sense that they can be USED by groups to
create, or destroy, balance. But the rules themselves don't DO it, and
have no actual direct effect on whether balance exists or not. They
can just make it easier or harder to maintain.

Now you're just being stupid.
If you have a set of perfectly balanced rules, the only way for the
rules to not have an effect on whether balance exists is for the
players to ignore and/or break the rules.

I cannot disagree with that statement.

I can simply disagree with the premise from which you began.


Your argument is equivalent

Post by Ed Chauvin IV
to saying that language doesn't help people communicate, because
people can break language rules.

I said that rules can be USEFUL. Just that they themselves don't
maintain balance. Only people can do that.

[Ed Chauvin IV]

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Ed Chauvin IV

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Ed Chauvin IV
The above quote does not contradict what you object to. It can be
true that rules do not by themselves create balance without them being
irrelevant to creating balance.

They are relevant in the sense that they can be USED by groups to
create, or destroy, balance. But the rules themselves don't DO it, and
have no actual direct effect on whether balance exists or not. They
can just make it easier or harder to maintain.

Now you're just being stupid.
If you have a set of perfectly balanced rules, the only way for the
rules to not have an effect on whether balance exists is for the
players to ignore and/or break the rules.

I cannot disagree with that statement.
I can simply disagree with the premise from which you began.

That's what I've been saying!

Post by Sea Wasp
Your argument is equivalent

Post by Ed Chauvin IV
to saying that language doesn't help people communicate, because
people can break language rules.

I said that rules can be USEFUL. Just that they themselves don't
maintain balance. Only people can do that.

You said, and it's still quoted above, "...the rules... have no actual
direct effect on whether balance exists or not."



Ed Chauvin IV

[Sea Wasp]

Post by Ed Chauvin IV
You said, and it's still quoted above, "...the rules... have no actual
direct effect on whether balance exists or not."

Yes. Which does not contradict what I'm saying. The group can USE the
rules, but the rules have no DIRECT effect as the rules have no active
component. They're completely passive. How they are used -- well or
poorly -- or not used is entirely in the hands of the group. The rules
may make it easier for the group to do the work, but by themselves the
rules do absolutely nothing.

[Werebat]

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Ed Chauvin IV
You said, and it's still quoted above, "...the rules... have no actual
direct effect on whether balance exists or not."

Yes. Which does not contradict what I'm saying. The group can USE
the rules, but the rules have no DIRECT effect as the rules have no
active component. They're completely passive. How they are used -- well
or poorly -- or not used is entirely in the hands of the group. The
rules may make it easier for the group to do the work, but by themselves
the rules do absolutely nothing.

Oh, it's a "guns don't kill people" kind of thing.

- Ron ^*^

[Ed Chauvin IV]

Post by Werebat

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Ed Chauvin IV
You said, and it's still quoted above, "...the rules... have no actual
direct effect on whether balance exists or not."

Yes. Which does not contradict what I'm saying. The group can USE
the rules, but the rules have no DIRECT effect as the rules have no
active component. They're completely passive. How they are used -- well
or poorly -- or not used is entirely in the hands of the group. The
rules may make it easier for the group to do the work, but by themselves
the rules do absolutely nothing.

Oh, it's a "guns don't kill people" kind of thing.

"Rules don't balance games, Mario van Peebles"



Ed Chauvin IV

[Marc L.]

Post by Werebat
Oh, it's a "guns don't kill people" kind of thing.

Correct, three inch holes in people, kill people.

Marc

[Sea Wasp]

Post by Marc L.

Post by Werebat
Oh, it's a "guns don't kill people" kind of thing.

Correct, three inch holes in people, kill people.
Marc

No. It's the missing pieces that used to be where the three inch
holes are that kills people.

Or, better yet: "Guns don't kill people. *I* kill people. Guns are
just one of many entertaining ways to do this."

[Marc L.]

Post by Sea Wasp
No. It's the missing pieces that used to be where the three inch
holes are that kills people.

No, for those pieces used to fullfill vital roles, hence they
didn't kill people.

[Hong Ooi]

Post by Marc L.

Post by Sea Wasp
No. It's the missing pieces that used to be where the three inch
holes are that kills people.

No, for those pieces used to fullfill vital roles, hence they
didn't kill people.

Death is a state of mind.

[Marc L.]

Post by Hong Ooi
Death is a state of mind.

State of no-mind? Oh, wait, that describes many usenet members.

[David Meadows]

Post by Marc L.

Post by Hong Ooi
Death is a state of mind.

State of no-mind?

No, because your mind exists after death while waiting for its next
incarnation.

[Marc L.]

Post by David Meadows
No, because your mind exists after death while waiting for its next
incarnation.

Okay....

Marc

[Jeff Goslin]

Post by Marc L.

Post by Werebat
Oh, it's a "guns don't kill people" kind of thing.

Correct, three inch holes in people, kill people.

Well, if you want to get *REALLY* technical about it, it isn't even the
holes that kill either. It's the continued motion of the rest of the
machine we call our body that fills up the holes with blood and bile and
whatnot after they are made. Our body tends to work best in a single
contiguous piece, dontchaknowit. ;)

[Ed Chauvin IV]

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by c***@yahoo.com
1a) A group alone cannot create balance.

They most certainly can. The group, by itself, can simply play,
without any fixed or formal rules. This is an adult equivalent of
"Let's Pretend". If all the adults "play nice",

"Play nice", is a rule.

Post by Sea Wasp
there's no need for
any rules whatsoever except "let everyone have fun".

And yet, that's a rule too.



Ed Chauvin IV

[Sea Wasp]

Post by Ed Chauvin IV

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by c***@yahoo.com
1a) A group alone cannot create balance.

They most certainly can. The group, by itself, can simply play,
without any fixed or formal rules. This is an adult equivalent of
"Let's Pretend". If all the adults "play nice",

"Play nice", is a rule.

Post by Sea Wasp
there's no need for
any rules whatsoever except "let everyone have fun".

And yet, that's a rule too.

And if you wish to consider those sufficient to call the rules for a
roleplaying game, then you are correct that you CAN have an inherently
balanced set of rules.

I don't consider those to be the rules of any specific game at all.
They are the basic rules of LIFE, really. For a specific sort of game,
I expect a bit more than that. Actually, a lot more than that for a RPG.

[Ed Chauvin IV]

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Ed Chauvin IV

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by c***@yahoo.com
1a) A group alone cannot create balance.

They most certainly can. The group, by itself, can simply play,
without any fixed or formal rules. This is an adult equivalent of
"Let's Pretend". If all the adults "play nice",

"Play nice", is a rule.

Post by Sea Wasp
there's no need for
any rules whatsoever except "let everyone have fun".

And yet, that's a rule too.

And if you wish to consider those sufficient to call the rules for a
roleplaying game, then you are correct that you CAN have an inherently
balanced set of rules.
I don't consider those to be the rules of any specific game at all.

Uh, looks to me like it's the basic rules of "Let's Pretend".

Post by Sea Wasp
They are the basic rules of LIFE, really.

If that's actually what you think, you've got a lot to lean.




Ed Chauvin IV

[Sea Wasp]

Post by Ed Chauvin IV

Post by Sea Wasp
They are the basic rules of LIFE, really.

If that's actually what you think, you've got a lot to lean.

And on what should I lean?

Those are the basic rules of life. A lot of a**holes don't play by
the rules.

[Ed Chauvin IV]

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Ed Chauvin IV

Post by Sea Wasp
They are the basic rules of LIFE, really.

If that's actually what you think, you've got a lot to lean.

And on what should I lean?
Those are the basic rules of life.

Those are not the basic rules of life. They are the more advanced
rules of *society*.

Post by Sea Wasp
A lot of a**holes don't play by the rules.

Everyone plays by the rules of life.



Ed Chauvin IV

[Warren J. Dew]

Sea Wasp posts, in part:

Let us all hail to Google's new improvements, which they
didn't ask us about. I complained to them about their new
format when they were beta-testing and they basically told
me "too bad, we don't care, WE like it."

I noticed, in particular, that they edit email addresses. I
consider this bad for usenet because it makes it difficult to
take discussions not of general interest to email.

I suspect this also puts them in violation of copyright. I
consider my email address to be part of my post, because it's
important information for any readers who might want to contact
me. When I post to usenet, I am consenting to propagation of
the post according to usenet rules - which is to say, unaltered
and within the context of the entire contents of the newsgroup.
However, I don't consent to Google's reproducing the
information with alterations to the email address.


Warren J. Dew
Powderhouse Software

[J.M. Joensuu]

Post by Sea Wasp
Let us all hail to Google's new improvements, which they
didn't ask us about. I complained to them about their new
format when they were beta-testing and they basically told
me "too bad, we don't care, WE like it."

I don't know that much about their improvements, I just noticed that I
can't reply anymore. It just doesn't seem to find the right message to
reply to... Well, atleast it finally got me to use a proper newsreader.

Post by Sea Wasp
I noticed, in particular, that they edit email addresses. I
consider this bad for usenet because it makes it difficult to
take discussions not of general interest to email.

Ouch! That sounds bad. What does it do?

Janne Joensuu,
Endoperez

[Russell Wallace]

Post by Warren J. Dew
I suspect this also puts them in violation of copyright. I
consider my email address to be part of my post, because it's
important information for any readers who might want to contact
me. When I post to usenet, I am consenting to propagation of
the post according to usenet rules - which is to say, unaltered
and within the context of the entire contents of the newsgroup.
However, I don't consent to Google's reproducing the
information with alterations to the email address.

Considering Google are providing a service of real value to humanity,
and doing it for free - so the fact that they can continue pouring in
the millions of dollars it costs is somewhere between a miracle and a
mirage - I would advise people to think very long and hard before
biting the hand that feeds.

If you don't like Google Groups, use a different news service. If you
invoke the jackboot, you'll end up with the company that's best at
getting the men in jackboots to do their bidding. Do you really think
Apple or Microsoft Groups would be more to your liking than Google
Groups?

[Sea Wasp]

Post by Russell Wallace

Post by Warren J. Dew
I suspect this also puts them in violation of copyright. I
consider my email address to be part of my post, because it's
important information for any readers who might want to contact
me. When I post to usenet, I am consenting to propagation of
the post according to usenet rules - which is to say, unaltered
and within the context of the entire contents of the newsgroup.
However, I don't consent to Google's reproducing the
information with alterations to the email address.

Considering Google are providing a service of real value to humanity,
and doing it for free -

Some people dispute the first part and some the second part of that
statement. I'm sure some will be along to debate it with you.

[Russell Wallace]

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 11:46:45 GMT, Sea Wasp

Post by Sea Wasp
Some people dispute the first part and some the second part of that
statement. I'm sure some will be along to debate it with you.

These days I tend to let reality do the debating. My schtick is being
able to say "I told you so" ^.^

[Sea Wasp]

Post by Russell Wallace
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 11:46:45 GMT, Sea Wasp

Post by Sea Wasp
Some people dispute the first part and some the second part of that
statement. I'm sure some will be along to debate it with you.

These days I tend to let reality do the debating. My schtick is being
able to say "I told you so" ^.^

Well, the thing is that reality can't do the debating for you when
the argument is based on different preferences. I.e., at least some of
the arguments against Google that I've heard are based on what people
want OUT of reality; they don't argue what Google does or makes
possible, just about whether it's a good thing.

[Warren J. Dew]

Russell Wallace posts, in part:

Considering Google are providing a service of real value
to humanity

Well, they were back when they obeyed usenet rules. Now that
they are only providing a censored version of usenet, I think
the "service" they provide is of negative value to humanity as a
whole.

In general, I think Google is coasting on a reputation no longer
deserved. They now have a very restrictive user agreement, and
many of their recent moves seem clearly intended to permit them
to extract revenue in the future. I think that in a few years,
they could well be far worse than Microsoft ever was.

If you don't like Google Groups, use a different news service.

I do, and have since long before Google existed. My objection
is that Google still feels free to take my posts without my
permission, censor them, and put them on their servers.


Warren J. Dew

Copyright 2005 by Warren J. Dew. Permission granted to distribute on usenet
servers carrying all traffic on the group only if unmodified (including return
email). Quoting in followup usenet messages is generally considered fair use.

[Neelakantan Krishnaswami]

I do, and have since long before Google existed. My objection is
that Google still feels free to take my posts without my permission,
censor them, and put them on their servers.

Stick "X-no-archive: yes" in the headers, and Google won't archive
them.

[Jeff Heikkinen]

Q: Are we not men? A: We are Neelakantan Krishnaswami!

Post by Neelakantan Krishnaswami

I do, and have since long before Google existed. My objection is
that Google still feels free to take my posts without my permission,
censor them, and put them on their servers.

Stick "X-no-archive: yes" in the headers, and Google won't archive
them.

Then they don't show up at all, which is arguably worse.

[Neelakantan Krishnaswami]

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
Q: Are we not men? A: We are Neelakantan Krishnaswami!

Post by Neelakantan Krishnaswami

I do, and have since long before Google existed. My objection is
that Google still feels free to take my posts without my permission,
censor them, and put them on their servers.

Stick "X-no-archive: yes" in the headers, and Google won't archive
them.

Then they don't show up at all, which is arguably worse.

Not for Warren -- he wrote that Google displaying an archive of
modified posts is of negative value. Since he would not have posted if
he didn't ascribe a positive value to his post, then I conclude he
would prefer not being archived at all to having modified posts
archived.

[Ken Arromdee]

Post by Jeff Heikkinen

Post by Neelakantan Krishnaswami
Stick "X-no-archive: yes" in the headers, and Google won't archive
them.

Then they don't show up at all, which is arguably worse.

In the new Google Groups, they do show up, with a timeout of 1 week, and it
says the message will be removed in however many days.

[Warren J. Dew]

Neel K. posts, in part:

Not for Warren -- he wrote that Google displaying an
archive of modified posts is of negative value. Since
he would not have posted if he didn't ascribe a positive
value to his post, then I conclude he would prefer not
being archived at all to having modified posts archived.

I shouldn't have to go to the trouble of sticking anything in my
posts.

However, if there were an X-no-google-archive, I might put that
in. I do, however, want my posts available from archives that
obey standard news server rules (e.g., unedited posts).

Warren J. Dew

Copyright 2005 by Warren J. Dew. Permission granted to distribute on usenet
servers carrying all traffic on the group only if unmodified (including return
email). Quoting in followup usenet messages is generally considered fair use.

[Bradd W. Szonye]

Post by Warren J. Dew
However, if there were an X-no-google-archive, I might put that
in. I do, however, want my posts available from archives that
obey standard news server rules (e.g., unedited posts).

The Google Groups does follow the rules for servers; it stores and
propagates articles unedited, so far as I can tell. It's the Google
reader that disguises e-mail addresses, presumably to discourage
harvesting. (I also presume that it's not so much to protect the posters
as it is to avoid the bandwidth that harvesting requests would consume.)

By the way, according to the proposed USEFOR "Best Practices" document,
a reading agent must provide all information from Usenet headers in some
format. The Google agent probably violates this, although you can
extract the reply address by actually replying, which arguably satisfies
the requirement in a perverse way.

Post by Warren J. Dew
Copyright 2005 by Warren J. Dew. Permission granted to distribute on
usenet servers carrying all traffic on the group only if unmodified
(including return email). Quoting in followup usenet messages is
generally considered fair use.

This is pointless, for two reasons. First, without registering the
copyright, you can only sue for actual damages, which are almost
certainly nothing. More importantly, the Google server /does/ distribute
articles unmodified; as I said, it's the reader that does the mangling.
The former makes it pointless for legal reasons, and the latter makes it
pointless for rhetorical reasons.

[Rupert Boleyn]

On 28 Jan 2005 03:18:09 GMT, ***@aol.com (Warren J. Dew) carved
upon a tablet of ether:

Wow. It's like back in the old days - this post just arrived on my
news server.

[Marc L.]

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
Then they don't show up at all, which is arguably worse.

Wrong, absolutely wrong. They show up on Google, but only for a
specific number of days, then they disapear.

[Charlton Wilbur]

JH> Q: Are we not men? A: We are Neelakantan Krishnaswami!

Post by Neelakantan Krishnaswami
Stick "X-no-archive: yes" in the headers, and Google won't
archive them.

JH> Then they don't show up at all, which is arguably worse.

On the other hand, anyone who is unhappy with Google Groups can
register at news.individual.net and have access to a free news server.
There *are* alternatives to Google.

Charlton

[Jeff Heikkinen]

Q: Are we not men? A: We are Charlton Wilbur!

Post by Charlton Wilbur
JH> Q: Are we not men? A: We are Neelakantan Krishnaswami!

Post by Neelakantan Krishnaswami
Stick "X-no-archive: yes" in the headers, and Google won't
archive them.

JH> Then they don't show up at all, which is arguably worse.
On the other hand, anyone who is unhappy with Google Groups can
register at news.individual.net and have access to a free news server.
There *are* alternatives to Google.

Neither Warren nor I use it; this subthread has never been about that,
although I believe the original post was. There is no alternative to
*showing up in it* (not even X-no-archive, as I see from the posts since
my last one - my bad).

[Werebat]

Both are important. A munchkinny group with twink players is going to
angle for every unbalancing facet of the rules to work for them, and a
balanced set of rules will encourage more balanced play (if there is
little to exploit, why bother playing that "game" and instead why not
make an interesting character?).

End of discussion.

- Ron ^*^

[Ed Chauvin IV]

Post by Werebat
End of discussion.

Can't happen, this is Usenet.


Ed Chauvin IV