[ASLML] Fw: A7.52

[Bruce Bakken]

Hello, Chris.

Thank you for sharing this, and Happy Thanksgiving to you and to all 
denizens of ASL Land.

I have a few serious questions, which I am addressing as Open Questions to 
the ASLML, and which I hope someone can adequately answer.

1. Is there any way that an objective third party can independently verify 
that a poster to the ASLML has not edited or otherwise changed any response 
received from Perry, prior to sharing it with the ASLML?  Please elaborate 
and demonstrate.

2. Is there any way that an objective third party can independently verify 
that the response a respondent has received was in fact written by Perry, 
and not by someone usurping an email address containing his name?  Please 
elaborate and demonstrate.

3. Is there any way to prove or demonstrate that any Q&A compilation created 
by an independent ASL player has not been tampered with, or otherwise 
altered to fit the compiler's own point of view?  Please elaborate and 
demonstrate.

4. Is there any way that an independent observer can tell whether a printed 
version of an electronic communication has not been tampered with or changed 
in any fashion?  Please elaborate and demonstrate.

5. Is there any way that an objective third party can verify and confirm any 
Official ASL Q&A and Errata?  Please elaborate and demonstrate.

6. Is there any reason why an objective third party should accept as true 
and correct, any non-official reference to any rule, discussion, question, 
answer, or errata?

These are not frivolous questions.  Many will object to the mere asking of 
them.  I am not trying to offend anybody, nor to cause trouble.  These are 
legitimate, actual questions which I am hoping someone can answer for me.

I sincerely believe I have valid reservations about the way in which such an 
important, fundamental and core part of the ASL game system as DRM -- the 
very essence of how probabilities are handled with the game system -- are 
addressed and disseminated to the ASL community, much of which (being 
worldwide) may not have access to the Internet.

Why do I care?  To directly quote a very able and competent participant in 
the recent debate:

"You may be surprised how a thing like this can effect (sic) your tactical 
thinking." (24 Nov 00:09)

No extra bonus points will be awarded to those who can guess who's quote 
this is.  (Hint: It's not mine.)

Regards to All,
Bruce Bakken


>From: "Mountain View Cottage" <mountainview at westelcom.com>
>To: <aslml at asl-forums.net>
>Subject: [ASLML] Fw: A7.52
>Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:55:39 -0500
>
>Follow up Q&As after my signature.
>
>Two of the lamest, straddle the fence
>(official) answers I've ever seen.
>
>The first answer answers *nothing*.
>Cowering has absolutely no
>relevance within this rule,
>it needs to be deleted.
>
>CX can only be +1, maximum,
>and needs to be deleted. Plus,
>officially, it's already covered
>by A.17 & A.5.
>
>There's Errata here, and it needs to
>be officially posted. Camp #1 (the
>current official way to play it) would
>have a stronger appeal for me if these
>were officially removed. If Perry is right,
>then the rule need only address TEMs +
>Hindrances, and it needs a re-write.
>
>The second answer could easily
>(dare I say *only*) be interpreted
>as Cowering *plus* CX are
>considered "part" of the "worst
>possible case" - thus, they're
>cumulatively added to obtain a
>"worst possible case",  and this
>can only support camp #2. In
>other words, how can they
>be "part" of the "worst possible
>case", if they're (officially) supposed
>to only create their *own* worst possible
>case (officially, only TEMs & Hindrances
>can have a "worst possible case").
>It's a good thing I didn't add in
>any "other DRM" possibilities, such as
>Encircled/Wire/Overstacked/ETC.
>
>I do appreciate his apology. With all due
>respect to him (I wouldn't want his job),
>I don't think even *he* really knows which
>camp is "right/wrong" (I see both interpretations
>as viable, as written) and he probably ruled
>as he did because that's how *he's* played it since
>the beginning (which is the same exact thing I'd do
>if I were in his shoes). His answers here, *especially*
>the 2nd one, seem thusly indicative.
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "PerryCocke" <perrycocke at comcast.net>
>To: "Mountain View Cottage" <mountainview at westelcom.com>
>Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 8:08 AM
>Subject: Re: A7.52
>
>
>
> > > What is the purpose of
> > > "(/Cowering/CX)"
> > > in this rule?
> >
> > FGs are affected by cowering and CX.
> >
> > > How can there be any
> > > "worst possible case"
> > > of these conditions?
> > >
> >
> > The "worst possible case" will include these effects.
> >
> > I apologize because this rule is not as clear as it could be.
> >
> > ....Perry
> > MMP
>
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
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.)