[ASLML] Summary of DRM for FG (A7.52)

[Bruce Bakken]

Hello Listerz, Listerines, Listoids, and ASL Freaks In General.

This post is not an invitation to debate the interpretation or application 
of any rule.

I have compiled this summary for all interested parties.  Near the end I 
express conclusions which reflect my own opinion on what I have learned.  It 
is a long post.  You may want to grab a beverage of your choice.

A discussion has recently concluded ( -- still ongoing! -- ) around the 
application of DRM to a FG, as expressed in A7.52.  Interpretations were 
divided along two lines of thought.

One camp has been dubbed the "Single Member Theory".  Single Member Theory 
contends that the DRM that applies to a FG is the worst case of any single 
member taken individually.  The total DRM for each member is determined 
separately, and then the worst total DRM for any one member is applied to 
the entire FG.

The second camp I shall call "Conditional Cumulativity".  Conditional 
Cumulativity holds that the worst instance of Hindrance, TEM, and CX that 
applies to any individual member also applies to the entire FG.  The worst 
TEM DRM for any single member is determined, to which is added the worst 
Hindrance DRM for any single member, to which is added a +1 CX DRM if any 
member is CX.  To this figure is cumulatively added any other unique DRM 
that might apply to any member of the FG, even if that DRM might not apply 
to other members of the FG (examples included Wire, Encirclement, or any 
listed beneath the IFT).

Perry has recently answered on the ASLML that Conditional Cumulativity is 
the correct way to interpret and implement DRM to a FG, vis-a-vis rule 
A7.52.

Because it is a matter of public record, I have compiled a list of 
respondents under each camp, and when known their country of origin.  I have 
done this for informational purposes only, in order to demonstrate the 
wide-ranging participation this topic engendered.  This is my own list, 
compiled from available sources and to the best of my understanding of each 
individual position.  Any errors or misrepresentations in this list are my 
fault.


"Conditional Cumulativity"

Tate Rogers (U.S.)
Bruce Probst (Australia)
Seth Fancher (U.S.)
Pete Shelling (U.S.)
David Olie (?)
Malcolm Rutledge (?)
Wes Neal (?)
JR (?)
Janusz Maxe (?)


"Single Member Theory"

Chris Fleury (U.S.)
Bruce Bakken (U.S.)
Kenneth Knudsen (Scandinavia)
Cliff Schmidt (?)
Jim McLeod (Canada)
Andrea Fantozzi (Italy)
Ken McManamy (U.S. ?)


"Undeclared But Contributing"

Seth Semenza (?)
Peter Rogneholt (Scandinavia ?)
Martin (?)


The total number of members in each camp as I have listed them is nine (9) 
in Conditional Cumulativity and seven (7) in Single Member Theory.  The 
total number of respondents to the subject as I have recorded them is 19.

I am struck by the clear division established during this  discussion.  Each 
position is exclusive, and has no room for the other.  In almost every case, 
a respondent declared with some variations of "I have always played it this 
way", and "I don't know anyone who plays it differently".

I find these divisions and declarations significant because I have heard 
that this discussion had already taken place on the ASLML (-yawn-), quite 
some time ago (-stretch-), and Perry had already ruled on this subject 
consistently with his recent statement ("bo-o-oring, can't we talk about 
something interesting?").

I have drawn certain conclusions from this experience.  This is the part 
where I opine.

1. The prior discussion and ruling on this subject seems to have made little 
impact on the ASL community.  It appears that many are unaware that such a 
prior conclusion had already been reached.  Insofar as the earlier Perry Sez 
is not available as an Official source, it may therefore be ignored as 
irrelevant.

2. When comparing the total number of replies on this subject to the average 
number of replies for the typical ASLML subject, the numbers for this 
subject strike me as not insignificant.  The small sample size, plus the 
fact that we cannot account for views that are not expressed, cautions 
against drawing any firm conclusions.  However, the numbers seem close 
enough to suggest that we cannot ignore them, nor may we conclude that any 
one side may finally represent a clear majority of how this rule might be 
interpreted by a randomly selected player.

3. Replies to this topic suggest that most held positions occurred due to 
natural interpretation.  Learning and application for most players seems to 
have come through discovery while learning the game.  Notwithstanding that a 
member from either camp might claim that the rule is obvious and clear to 
their understanding, it seems adequately demonstrated by the data that the 
rule does not clearly communicate the effect that it intends.

4. Points #2 and #3 lead me to conclude that rule A7.52 is not "fine as 
written".

5. Armed only with the ASLRB, Official Q&A and no prior appreciation of ASL, 
natural discovery and interpretation through learning cannot predict how a 
player may apply rule A7.52.

6. Neither the ASLML, nor the ASL Forums, nor any discussion medium, nor any 
private compilations of questions and answers, can with certainty influence 
or predict how a new player may learn and apply rule A7.52.

7. With no Official Q&A or Errata to confirm the intent of rule A7.52, it 
may be assumed that a certain percentage of new players will learn the rule 
contrary to its intent.

8. In light of Point #8, it may be expected that this subject will be raised 
again at some future time.

9. ASL discussion forums, personal web sites, and private compilations are 
irrelevant in establishing and affirming the correct and proper application 
and intent of any ASL rule.  Even an unofficial "Perry Sez" amounts to mere 
opinion for those entering the ASL Community unencumbered with prior ASL 
knowledge or bias.

10. This late thread about the application of A7.52 has really -- as far as 
serving the ASL Community is concerned -- concluded nothing.


I've tried to approach this subject with an objective and scientific 
detachment.  Insofar as I may have failed at that, what can I say -- I'm 
only human.

If you've gotten this far, thank you for attending my views.  You may all go 
back to your lives now.

With Regards to the Great ASL Community,
Bruce Bakken

_________________________________________________________________
Has one of the new viruses infected your computer?  Find out with a FREE 
online computer virus scan from McAfee. Take the FreeScan now!  
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963