WHOSE RULES?

Mark started an interesting thread in the rules section on who should interpret the rules. See below. This does not involve any disrespect for Phil but is a candid discussion of how we can have a stable set of rules. How are interpretations made.

Some times we all are playing in a way not intended by the author. Sometimes there are differences in how groups understand and play the game.

Sometimes there are rules that people just do not like, but we understand them. This is not what I am interested in. I want us to make suggestions whether Phil is the final authority on his rules, some other person or group, or no final authority (people just play as they want, and roll a dice to decide when problems develop. )

Phil, it seems to me, does not want a rigid set of standard rules.

As my term as the NASAMW DBA Umpire is expiring next year, we might want to come up with a way to solve problems, or not. The new Umpire might want to make his own Commentary. He might want to introduce his own rules. My guiding principle has always been to play the game as close to how it is written as possible. Others might want to introduce their own ideas as was the case before there was a DBA Umpire, and is often done in regional events and those in other countries.

I had wanted to come up with an internationally accepted set of interpretations but have failed. A person cannot sit at a game in some tournament and expect to use the same interpretations as might be used in another event. Imagine chess being done like this?

So whose rules are we to use?

Originally posted by Pozanias:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bob.:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pozanias:
I, for one, don't happen to think Phil's word is the final authority on rules interpretations.

If the author's word is not the final authority, then what will be? </font>[/QUOTE]I mean no disrespect towards Phil. In fact, I think very highly of him in many ways. But, I have played DBA with him, I have watched him play DBA against others, I have heard him answer questions in person, and I have seen his email replies. He does not know the DBA rules as well as many of the people on this board. And I think he responds to emails without ever opening his own copy of the rules. He's written rules for many games, and many versions for every game -- I don't think it's a crime if he can't keep them all straight. Especially DBA right now, which appears to be his lowest priority.

So, to answer your question. For NASAMW, the answer is you Bob (or more accurately, it is the CHUMP - which is you ). Other regions have their own means of determining the final authority. For the international community as a whole, I think this forum does a pretty good job. </font>[/QUOTE]

[ May 15, 2005, 22:58: Message edited by: Bob. ]

Originally posted by Bob.:

As my term as the NASAMW DBA Umpire is expiring next year, we might want to come up with a way to solve problems, or not.

I have a solution. Don't let Bob retire!

Originally posted by Bob.:
I had wanted to come up with an internationally accepted set of interpretations but have failed.

What leads you to day that you 'failed', Bob? It seems to me that there is really a pretty strong consensus about how the game ought to be played and interpreted, with the exception of a very few minor points. As the community of players (and the game itself) keeps changing, it's no wonder that new points of contention arise from time to time. Calling this 'failure' implies to me that you are comparing it to an unachievable standard of conformity.

Bob,

You have done a great job of keeping us at least close on interps. That isn't a failure, you have done a great job, even if I do disagree at times. [img]smile.gif[/img] That is the great thing about what you have done, we can all play the same game and enjoy it. It took Chess almost 500 years to become what it is today, so you have done a great job.

As to Mark's post I agree with him, Phil has over the years switched position on rules or interps, has misplayed his own rules, and in general mocked our attempts to make this a nice easy to understand game. He is a great person, a fantastic game designer, and a good player, but he has his hands in to many sets of rules now and it shows in his inability to discuss problems. We as a community play it the way we see it, and you rule as you read it, it works for most of us.

Mike S.

Originally posted by Bob.:
I had wanted to come up with an internationally accepted set of interpretations but have failed.

Well, the commentaries are "official interpretation" for the Italian tournements, so
at least a small goal has been achieved.

A person cannot sit at a game in some tournament and expect to use the same interpretations as might be used in another event. Imagine chess being done like this?

Well, chinese chess is very different from western chess, even if you can feel che came from the same ancestor.

In any case chess was never copyrighted, so at the end the standardization built up from the community of players.

Attilio

Bob;
As to your original question (“Whose rules”); I believe we use the rules as written (when required), but where they are unclear and require interpretation, we not be afraid to use consensus arbitrated (very ably) by you in your role as official umpire. I agree with the opinions expressed by many that we should not seek interpretations of the DBA rules from PB; he is too unreliable and un-engaged in DBA for this. I've said so before on this forum. Where I am agreed we should seek counsel from PB is to request him to make rules changes; but not interpretations on what he’s already written.

So for example, I know that since 2.2, the rules now (unfortunately) make clear movement should be measured based on all 4 corners. I think this is a bad rule. If I were to become aware that a new DBA update was being prepared by PB, I would lobby him to change it. Meanwhile, I ignore the rule in play, and no one , including in tourney’s, has ever yet challenged me on it; mainly I believe because most active DBA players share my dislike of the new rule. However, if they ever did and requested I apply the 4 corner rule, I would comply without question, since I acknowledge it is now the rule.

On the other hand, if someone challenged me on the shooting on rear interpretation and wanted to apply the current interpretation that apparently PB says was his “intent” (even though he’s changed his mind on it at least once), I would politely explain that’s not how I (and many others) interpret it and suggest to my opponent he use the interpretation I favour (i.e. must be completely behind rear). If they are unwilling, I would suggest a die role to settle the matter for that game. If they were still unwilling, if a tourney situation, I would suggest the umpire settle the issue, otherwise, I would probably concede the point; not from merit; but simply because I don’t see the point in a game of DBA arguing such an issue, especially when it involves interpretation.

Remember that a day will come (hopefully still far off) when PB is not around to provide “clarification” or “intent” anyway. Hopefully, we will still all be enjoying playing DBA then. So we would have to have some alternate approach to resolve rules interpretations. No reason not to do it now.

What would be very helpful IMO, would be to have a summary list and explanation of the contentious interpretations available so that local umpires at tourneys could provide these at the start of the tourney. I know these are all embedded in your excellent commentaries, but the commentaries are much more of a (superb) users/beginners manual and not only includes latest best views of interpretations, but repeats and fully explains a lot of the basic rules. My thought then is a one or two page summary of NASAMW DBA “interpretations”. Maybe it already exists and I just don’t realize it. That way players know at the start, the interpretations that local umpire plans to use (if he/she so chooses). It also allows more experienced players a written reference point to help explain from when playing newer players. My experience has been most players at tourney’s actively seek to help newer players understand less clear rules and usually such less experienced players are very appreciative of the help.

Meanwhile, let’s get on through this forum settling any contentious interpretations amongst ourselves (energy levels permitting), with final arbitration (i.e. at least for tourney’s) by you Bob.

Thanks.

John

[ May 21, 2005, 17:32: Message edited by: JLogan ]

Originally posted by Andrechin:

In any case chess was never copyrighted, so at the end the standardization built up from the community of players.

And chess is played on squares. No rulers. No "moving to contact" and no overlaps.

[ May 21, 2005, 22:42: Message edited by: John Meunier ]

John Logan,

Thanks for supporting my point that it might be best for players to just decide for themselves how they will play the game.

"On the other hand, if someone challenged me on the shooting on rear interpretation and wanted to apply the current interpretation that apparently PB says was his “intent” (even though he’s changed his mind on it at least once), I would politely explain that’s not how I (and many others) interpret it and suggest to my opponent he use the interpretation I favour (i.e. must be completely behind rear). "If they are unwilling, I would suggest a die role to settle the matter for that game. If they were still unwilling, if a tourney situation, I would suggest the umpire settle the issue, otherwise, I would probably concede the point; not from merit; but simply because I don’t see the point in a game of DBA arguing such an issue, especially when it involves interpretation."

Each player uses moral pursuasion to gain his interpretation. The rules do not say shooting from behind but John happens to like that idea so he plays with it and tries to make the opponent follow along. There can never be a universally accepted set of interpretations.

There are two levels for this notion of personal rules. One has to do with how to interprete unclear rules and the other with the acceptance of stated rules. Johnb's example shows the former. Mike Demanna, for example, does not like the BUA so he does not allow them in his games. Even in NASAMW sponsored events, such as those run by David Kuijt at 04 Fall-in, personal preferences appear, such as LH do not quick kill pikes and spears. I recently asked someone to help run a convention tournament and he came up with a long list of rule changes to use.

I have been trying since 2.0 came out to establish a principle of playing the game as written and providing interpretations that follow the authors intent. This has not succeeded as shown by all the comments from people who say they will just play the way they want and the event organizers who make up their own rules. Even Phil does not want to standardize the rules.

Thus there is really no need to have a set of official interpretations because they are often ignored. After 05 Historicon I will no longer attempt to create a standard set of interpretations so I will not feel bad when people play the way they want anyway [img]smile.gif[/img]

People who run events can then be free to make any changes they want. The players will just have to learn to adjust from game to game.

You really sound tired, Bob.

There has always been a dynamic tension between personal (and group) preferences and the desire for standardization. This is nothing new! Game organizers (in NASAMW and outside) have been running games with small changes since the dawn of time; those same game organizers are the ones who would usually most support the idea that standardization is (by and large) a good thing.

True and total standardization has never been possible. The world isn't black and white, it is shades of grey. For example, look at Mike Demana's horrible decision to ban BUAs -- I've seen several bizillion DBA games played since we got Phil to officially make BUAs optional, and I can't remember a single BUA in all that period. So even though you might see Mike D's action as a blow against standardization, is that really true? He's banning something that nobody is using anyway -- how big a step away from standardized rules is that, really?

You have been the banner-bearer of standardization forever, which is completely appropriate to your position as NASAMW chief umpire. You will never be able to stop referees from running DBA tournaments with minor variations of the rules, and I'm sure that you wouldn't really want to -- DBA is a living game, not a dead one. You yourself have run games with variations on the rules (your Duplicates), and everyone loves them.

So the world isn't split between radicals and conservatives -- even you are sometimes radical (using non-standard rules or deployment for a tournament, or talking about what changes might be good for the future -- even advocating that people agitate for their favorite rules with Phil), but on the other hand every person who runs games at any of the conventions I attend fully appreciates the benefits of standardization. After all, that's why we agitate so hard for rules that we really think are good for DBA -- because we want to create grass-roots support for that rule, with possible long-term adoption by the community as a whole. If we didn't value standardization, we wouldn't bother agitating for our favorite (or against our dis-favorite) rules!

I think this thread is filled with a lot of good posts. I agree with many of the sentiments expressed.

I happen to think that rules interpretations are MUCH more standardized now than a few years back. I think this forum and your interpretations document Bob are the two major reasons.

The successes are many. I think to ignore them does a disservice to yourself, and to all the polite, intelligent people on this forum and elsewhere that have debated these issues and come to a reasonable consensus. Some of the debates are mind-numbing , but most are very productive.

The defeats (of standardization) occur largely when the rules as written produce very unpopular results. They're really aren't THAT many of them, but they are contentious issues.

I play DBA much more than I umpire it, so my bias is usually in favor of game play. In other words, I will favor a weaker interpretation of the rules as written if it produces significantly better game play. But, it does me no good if I'm the only one that accepts that interpretation. So, like you, I fight for standardization. It's just that our visions of what should be standardized are a little different. But at the end of the day, I accept standardization whether I like the result or not (with the exception of measuring any corner, which is just dumb : ).

And when people annouce rules variants for tournaments they are running, that is still a victory for standardization. In other words, because there is a standarization of the rules, variations must be announced. That's a good thing. And variants *usually* add a little spice to the game. And that's also a good thing.

So, don't dispair. Life is good.

[ May 22, 2005, 19:28: Message edited by: Pozanias ]