[ASLML] CX FG and reality.

[Bruce Bakken]

Hello, Seth.

>
>Now Bruce, I think you're relying on your interpretation of what A7.52 
>"clearly" says.
>

Well, you're right, of course.  The statement was only in reference to 
myself, as are all statements when one is making a judgment.  It was a 
persuasive technique to demonstrate my view.  Just like a statement such as 
"it clearly does not".  <g>

>It actually says: "Should the LOS of any FG member be subject to a 
>Hindrance/TEM (/Cowering/CX penalty), the worst possible case applies to 
>all members of the FG (A.5)."
>

Chris has already shared Perry's response on this issue, so the matter is 
settled.  Any further argument against it would be insulting to the 
community.

>Now, in isolation, I would concede that your interpretation that "worst 
>possible case" means the highest adverse DRM as calculated for any of the 
>individual members. But IMO the specific reference to A.5 weakens the case, 
>b/c A.5 says: "...if a modifier applies to some, but not all, of the 
>attacking units, it applies to the attack only if detrimental to the 
>attacker."  So, this would exclude all beneficial leadership (in addition 
>to the specific prohibition mentioned earlier), as well as suggest that "a 
>modifier" is something distinct and measurable, which can be distinguished 
>and accumulated to determine the DRM to apply.
>
>If your interpretation were in fact correct, why would they not simply say 
>"For FG use the highest DRM that applies to any individual member of the 
>FG."  One sentence, eliminate numerous cross references, confusion, no need 
>to add verbiage to explain what you mean, no need to list different types 
>of DRM (hindrance, TEM, CX).  But it doesn't.  Instead it kind of meanders 
>hither and thither, warbling along.
>

I feel that to make the correct version more accurately stated, it should 
say something like "the worst possible DRM for each case".

My concern at this point is not the ruling itself.  Now that I understand 
its intent, I'll think more about it and adjust accordingly.

>Now, I suppose it is possible that the writers of the ASLRB were a bunch of 
>long-winded blowhards who preferred to express themselves loquaciously in 
>numerous paragraphs that would encourage debate and speculation for decades 
>into the future and expose them to ridicule.  Or maybe the intent (at least 
>here) was a little more complex than "use the highest DRM for any one unit" 
>and consequently they felt it necessary to add a few sentences to try to 
>make themselves clearer.
>

:-)

>Lastly, I want to point out that, as in many other discussions about the 
>rules, any assertion by any party that a rule "clearly means" or states 
>something should be dismissed as mere bluster as soon as a few people have 
>stated that they interpret it differently.  If 10 people read the same 
>thing and each interprets it differently, very hard IMO to claim that it is 
>"clear."  What is "clear" to one person may not be to someone else.

Well, that's exactly correct.

In this case, it was something like 4 to 6 of actual respondents, if I 
remember correctly.  How can we know how many actual players out there 
interpret it a given way?

>And to muddy the issue further, even if we looked at grammar and sentence 
>structure, punctuation and all that good stuff, unless we have some 
>confidence that the author knew how to construct a sentence that meant 
>exactly what he intended, that is all irrelevant.  If I use and/or in the 
>context of "and or or, but not both," maybe that is not the dictionary 
>definition, maybe I am an ignorant boob...but any other interpretation will 
>not divine my intent.
>

All good points.

>Now...I have sputtered on long enough...time to get to the next post so I 
>can go eat dinner soon!
>

Good sputtering.

Regards,
Bruce Bakken

>Be well all.
>
>Seth
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>At 09:21 AM 11/23/2003, Bruce Bakken wrote:
>
>
>>A7.52 clearly says to take the worst possible case of any member of the 
>>FG, and apply it to the entire FG.
>>
>>"Worst possible case" is common English usage, not ASL speech code.  Once 
>>people learn how to correctly read that sentence, the problem is over.
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Say “goodbye” to busy signals and slow downloads with a high-speed Internet 
connection! Prices start at less than $1 a day average.  
https://broadband.msn.com (Prices may vary by service area.)