As the title says. Continuing from this thread, https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/total-immunity-and-normal-ammo.34023/page-3 @Ogid I don't believe that's accurate. If you look at your first condition and effect what relationship do they have without the further condition of being hit by special ammo? If you want to write it as (condition),(condition),(effect),(extra line clarifying the effect) fine. There is no functional difference to my argument. In the actual situation we are discussing, where the added effect is placed in relation to those two conditions matters. Just because the sentence doesn't mention Special Ammo until the same line as the effect, does not mean the condition is not present. Context can be used to help clarify poorly written rules. In that sense it can be important. But context is subjective. What you interpret the context to be is not going to be the same context everyone else sees. A computer does not rely on context because it's a stupid hunk of metal. Bad coding aside, it follows a set of instructions that are impossible to deviate from. Rules for a game like Infinity should and can function the same way. They should never rely on context. So when you defend your argument with context, you're opening the door for other interpretations. How they collaborate is subjective. Whether the last bullet for Stratuscloud state cancellation is pertaining to the sentence before it or the skill itself is subjective. It's subjective because the Infinity rules follow a combination of bullet point structure and paragraph structure written in bullet point format. A combination that doesn't follow any rules set forth in Infinity the game or real life. So interpreting them is entirely subjective. We guess based on the context we perceive. "In addition" being the perfect example. Simply removing the bullets and putting everything into one long paragraph doesn't solve anything. The underlying problem of which effects function independently and which do not still exists. By changing the format you also potential change the meaning of those effects because you've removed the context a structure of bullet points provided. @Koni Can you or 'the team' be a little more impartial? Threads are closed suspiciously soon after a member asks. I've done as you asked and opened new threads in the past. Only to see that thread closed shortly after a member requested to close it. The manner of the request is below and apparently didn't matter to whoever closed the thread. They just did as they were asked. I fully expect the same response when I ask you to close other threads once an answer has been given.
I understand the language is tricky sometimes and making rules that can’t be tweaked is very hard, but it’s not as voluble as you are picturing it. In fact there is a scientific area that studies it, the linguistics. If the language were so easy to misinterpret, there wouldn’t be laws, or even effective oral communication. In this case we have a conditional (conditional 101). In English the conditional have 2 parts, the if/when clause where the condition is, and the second part where the “effect” happens. This kind of structure is also used in computer languages, using exactly the same syntaxes: If(condition) {effect}. In fact you can analyze a sentence with the same rigor that you write a code; and there could be crappy code that doesn’t run and also bad and ambiguous sentences. So your point about it having 2 conditions just can’t be hold if we are using English. The condition is all we have before the first comma. This is our conditional: Condition: When suffering a successful Attack—or being affected by any weapon or rule—that forces any ARM or BTS Rolls Effect: the owner is immune to the special effects of the Special Ammunitions However that effect is not enough for us to know how to handle the rule, so they just added an extra sentence clarifying that: Condition: When suffering a successful Attack—or being affected by any weapon or rule—that forces any ARM or BTS Rolls Effect: the owner is immune to the special effects of the Special Ammunitions, treating them as Normal Ammunition. Not we have the extra second effect in a different bullet point but that could be joined to the above with an “and”, so we have this structure in the end: Condition: When suffering a successful Attack—or being affected by any weapon or rule—that forces any ARM or BTS Rolls Effect 1: the owner is immune to the special effects of the Special Ammunitions, treating them as Normal Ammunition. Effect 2: players can choose between making an ARM Roll or BTS Roll, choosing the most advantageous for them. Unfortunately I’m not a linguist so I cannot offer an in depth and scientific explanation of why the effect 1 and 2 are independent, however as a language user I know that works that way (is the way my brain parse that). If any reader is into syntax, please feel free to complete my layman anaylsis. So, from a syntactic point of view, these rules structure are well constructed and clear to me. In the case of a full rule (like all the points of Dodge or Total Immunity), we have a text to parse with our brain. In this case instead of points and commas, there are bullets points; but it’s the same. As we are using the same language there are a set of rules that everyone is using (rules that are intuitive for us laymans, but that any linguist could explain). If the final text leaves something that can be interpreted in more than one way, then we have a problem; but in that case that’s not the fault of the language, the problem is the structure of the text. However, going back again to this particular case as I asked before:
Speaking as a professional software engineer, making sure your program has access to the appropriate contextual information at a given point is a huge amount of the art. We don’t write instruction-by-instruction machine code; we use high level languages and libraries that provide us tools to describe and track complex interactions so that we can model interesting systems.
Additional note - I am not a moderator, and I don’t speak for @psychoticstorm or @Koni. Threads are locked not because they go off-topic (see monthly speculation threads amongst others). They are generally locked based on the tone of the conversation (i.e. is it escalating from debate into argument). If a thread looks like a rehash of a previously-locked thread with several of the same actors taking the same positions, it is likely to be pre-emptively locked in order to keep the peace. This is simple pattern recognition on the part of the mods.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. I can be 100% certain how a computer will interpret my instructions because it follows a clear set of rules built on a solid structure. This process can be repeated for other computers that are based on that same set of rules and the results will be exactly the same. On the other hand, peoples use and understanding of the English language is ultimately flawed in many ways. Expecting them to overcome those flaws based on things like context is doomed to fail. It's imperative for rules people are meant to follow to be tighter, not looser. Do you personally take any issue with what you've described? I do. Because it means I can go into threads with a hostile tone on a regular basis and have their threads locked. If it's the same person I can setup a pattern of behavior. So rather than mods dealing with individual trouble makers, they are helping those trouble makers get exactly what they want.
When we are talking about the context we are not saying that is a sustitute of a well written rules. The text should be coherent and well written; but even in the most perfectly built text, if you take a line out of context, you won't get the right reading. For example, in the Dodge case you talked before If you read the second line isolated, you don't know what he is talking about, "This Face to Face Roll" have been presented in the line above. For the computer is the same, they need the right context (right variables, packages loaded...) so they can understand the code. If you tell to a computer this: > x+5 without defining x, then you will get an error. If you read an isolated bullet point of a rule, you will also get a "brain error", because you lack the necessary information to parse that.
I do take issue. If I had my way, “troublemakers” would be banned much more frequently than they currently are. As you point out, they are disruptive to productive conversation and a positive forum experience.
Can i ask: 1) why is this topic in the Rules forum? There is no rule discussion, the topic is already cleared and thus closed by staff 2) what is the aim of the topic?
1) Because there isn`t a real Forum for how to interpret rule wordings in english would be my guess 2) To discuss how to make rules foolproof (idiotproof) would be my guess for that
Let's listen @psychoticstorm and keep the focus in the main topic please. I don't want another thread closed. My advice is that if someone has something to say about what happens in the other thread, of course go ahead; but using PM (I already did). Turning the close of a thread into a shitshow in the forum is not going to help us; and it's only going to give more ammunition to the trolls. For those users that like to heckle and get threads closed: I usually mind my own business; but from this point on, i'll report those kind of posts. If you have nothing constructive to say about what is being discussed, please just stay away from the thread.
Maybe we have different definitions of the word context but I like your example as it helps me explain/prove my point. The rules for Infinity allow players to read that second line as either isolated or as part of the previous line. An equivalent program does not allow this as it will define "X". (X is how to correctly interpret these bullet points) In the case of Dodge, you can say it's easy to understand whether the second line was meant to be read in isolation or as part of another bullet. It's easy to understand because the rule doesn't work in the opposing interpretation. A 'brain error' as you called it. However, it will not always be easy to identify which is meant by the rules. Stratuscloud state being the current example of this. There is no error as both interpretations function in some way. Others think Total Immunity's second line is independent as well. This is exactly where computer code is superior to Infinity's rules. The code needs to define what "X" means for the program to continue properly. People don't work that way. Without that definition we discuss the rule, guess what to do, and continue incorrectly or correctly, who knows. CB needs a big red flag to show them these errors. But instead of raising that flag i get the impression many people would rather just defend their interpretation as correct and move on. @psychoticstorm I imagine this thread will have some growing pains as it's outside the norm and I had something to say in that regards in my OP. Hopefully, the next thread in the same vain will not require that.
Code has the advantage that you know exactly what is happening (let’s exclude machine learning and all that stuff); you can run tests to see that all is working as expected and it will raise an error if the syntax is wrong. Written text could be analyzed, but unless you are into it, it’s not that easy; and bad syntaxis won’t stop you to understand something, but could make the text “unreliable”. So I agree there, clearly computers have an edge, but that doesn’t mean it’s impossible to make solid rules. In general players are interested in know how something works, not why it works; so they just take the RAI and call it a day. As I said in other thread, the RAW need to be discused with caution as some of these players may interpret that as someone looking for ways to cheat or take unfair advantages in games. Each bullet point should have a meaning on its own (even if we lack the contextual information to make use of it); I read them as if they were very short paragraphs. But all these paragraphs (bullet points) are explaining something, so they may refer to each other. That second bullet has a meaning on its own, but you don’t know when you have to make that FtF or the purpose of it. The problem would be if prior to that bullet point we had 3 different FtF rolls introduced, then it would be bad wording that need to be clarified/rewrited. In the case of Stratuscloud there is nothing that links both bullet points, so they are parsed separately. It’s true that you may parse it with the above point and the meaning change; but the syntax is there for that, to guide us. It’s like saying you don’t know if 4x(2+5) equals to 28 or 13; the syntax is there to give us the right answer. However it’s true that is not stated in the rules (it really should imo), but is something that ijw clarified. Hence, we know how to read the rules; even if there are other possible readings when joining bullet points that the syntax doesn’t tell us to join. In the case of Stratuscloud, it really seem that the “incorrect” way to read the rules gives us the RAI; but that’s just a problem with the syntax of that rule, it doesn’t mean you cannot trust the rest. If after reading the rules in that way there are more than 1 possible interpretation, then that rule should be discussed and clarified/fixed. In this case, could you explain your reading of the first 2 bullet points? I really don’t understand why you think the second bullet point has as condition the full first bullet point.
It's 100% possible to make solid written rules. It just requires more attention, effort, time, energy, whatever. A programming language already contains clear definitions and has a solid structure. Written language may have broader definitions and be more dynamic at times, but the elements are still there to do it right. My biggest gripe with the rules is they don't employ a better structure. A proper structure can eliminate so much confusion. Why rely on players to figure out which bullet point effects function independently or function in combination with others. Just separate them as needed. If the game is going to use the O.E.S. as the structure for an Activation+Order, make sure the rules use it. Don't ignore what is already put in place. Make sure the skills and abilities follow it properly. Quality check them against the O.E.S. etc. The current structure of Infinity is extremely loose and relies on players to fill in the gaps. It's painful. That's a fair point. I don't want to repeat myself but, as a competitive player I need to know with certainty how these edge cases are to be ruled. I'd also like to be able to teach others with certainty how something is played. To that end I'm not going to caudal some forum goers or tippy-toe around trying not to offend them. I'd rather focus on what I'm doing and be polite while sticking to the facts. If someone else takes offense and responds aggressively, I can't predict what will happen next. But changing my approach so they don't potentially get offended doesn't seem right to me. I completely disagree. I'm not going to explain why because that's in the other thread. You can't deny that other players have a different opinion or interpretation than you at times. Try to put to one side whether or not you think their interpretation is valid. Why not just eliminate the confusion altogether from a structural point of view. Move any global effects above the conditional ones as a start. If you think it's important, ask me again please (i don't actually know the specific rule you refer to). But from my point of view, how I read it is irrelevant. The point is, either all bullet points should function independently, or none should. That is a reliable way to interpret a set of rules. What's not reliable is trying to play some guessing game, no matter how easy you think it may be, across a large set of rules, results in different interpretations. That is pretty much a fact. It feels to me like you're focusing on the meaning of the words while I'm focused on the structure. Maybe I'm wrong. The bold line above is the structure I've been referring to.
+1 It's important to separate 2 concepts, one is the structure or syntax of the rules, the other is the interpretation of said rules. Syntax is not subjetive, interpretation might. I agree that a politic of every bullet point is read indendent to any other would had been better than the actual "...unless there is a connector". But that's what we got; you can't say you disagree with the syntax of the rules when it has been confirmed that it works like that. Unless you read the rules with the syntax they have used, you won't get the meaning they want. This point is critical. Also one thing is the bullet points working independently and other thing is the bullet points readed independently. All the bullet points, connector or not, are going to work toguether as they are colaborating to explain a rule. But only the bullet points with a connector are read toguether (which can alter the meaning) For example, going back to Dodge: None of these are read toguether (there is no connector in any of them); however they are clearly interacting with each other. For example, bullet point 6 says this: That line have a meaning on its own, however you lack information (how and when can you move? What roll?...) that the other bullet points complete. Or the line 5: That line also have a meaning on its own and is read independently BUT it is completing the rulling from the above bullet point. However we then go to our rulle (TI), then we find this: This "In addition" tell us that to get the full meaning of that line, we have to read it joining with the above If you read that as a independent line, it would trigger each time TI triggers (and as it has no requisites, it would trigger with each hit); so when you would be hit by a adhesive ammo for example, that line would trigger. However if we join both we have the following: So, that "in addition" is saying us, that line uses the condition of the above bullet point. The key part is, you can read all lines independently, you will lack context, but you can. However the bullet point with a connector would change the meaning if you read on its own. So let's focus here because if we don't agree here we cannot go forward. Quote some rules where you have doubts about if they are read independently or toguether and let's analyze them. Each one has his own style but imo: Being easily jebaited into fights or being too agressive and putting people on the defensive is not going to help you to make a point; in fact that is working actively against that. Each time you pick a fight is time and energy wasted arguing instead of discussing the topic; which would lead to a shitshow, bigoted positions and the close of the thread. If someone try to pick a fight because they think X, just politely defuse the situation and keep focused in the topic; if they continue heckling then just ignore the taunts or ask a mod to intervene. If you swallow the bait and engage, you lose (because again, the troll want you to pick the fight and ruin the thread; why on earth would you pick that fight?)
Isn't that the point? The player has to identify when a connector is being used. This process isn't detailed anywhere and is completely subjective. If it's so critical, it needs to be clearly defined, which it is not. Syntax may have one defined meaning in a paragraph when used correctly... but Infinity does not use it correctly at all times. The Syntax combined with bullet points is a real mess because they can point and refer to two different things. You are correct. However, the way it combines with the previous bullet point is not clear. I've explained why before. To me, the "In addition" is clearly referring to the situation presented in the previous bullet point. Which is one where Special ammo is used. Removing the bullets doesn't change my opinion either. The only thing the first line tells me to do is treat SA as NA. So... "In addition" to that, I get to choose my roll. The very last thing written in the first line is to treat it as NA. if I were to assume "In addition" was referring to what was written immediately beforehand, that backs up my interpretation as well. Having them as two separate bullets backs me up as well. It looks like a math equation with the first section in brackets. Unless someone can show me how the English language instructs me to only read that resulting in your interpretation, I'm sticking to my interpretation. I've even looked at proper grammar trying to see if I could find a comparable example but I had no luck. Dodge and Stratuscloud are still my examples of choice. With Dodge, the second bullet is a connector. It's not a connector that requires it to be read with the first bullet. But it's a connector in that, "This FTF roll" is specifically referring to roll made in the first bullet. I know this because there are no basic rolls made for Dodge outside the one stated in the first bullet. Dodge is not a roll by default because the skill has no basic function outside it's bullet points. The fifth bullet of Dodge is also a connector. It refers to "a successful Dodge". What is that condition referring to? Don't forget players allow that rule to function without a FTF roll. For Stratuscloud: A trooper in Stratuscloud state can cancel this state by declaring so, without spending Order or ARO. Once this state is cancelled, the player cannot activate it again. The last line is also a possible connector. The line before refers to the "Stratuscloud state" the trooper is in as, "this state". The last line then refers to "this state". Is that referring to the state cancelled in the bullet before, or any instance of the state? I don't think we have much more to say on these individual cases because we can't agree they even exist.
100% agree with you here, How the bullet points and the connectors should be readed deserves its own entry in the wiki, because it can really mesh with what a rule mean. But until that happens if you have a doubt, you have the forums. Unfortunately I’m not a linguist so I can’t help here if you are looking for an academic explanation; however I think that you answer yourself before, this was what you wrote in the other thread: We have 1 condition plus 2 actions; the only condition here is the (condition), the second action doesn’t depend on the first one (there is no extra condition). Also the order here is clear, determined by both the order in which the conditions are written but also makes sense (first change the ammo to normal, then choose the save). Also check again my 2 examples. Example 1: If we go to the beach this weekend, I’ll give you a special treat for being such a good son, you can go to swim to the new pool. In addition, I'll buy you an ice cream in that gas station in our way to home, you can choose the flavor you like the most. The kid will get the ice cream if they go to the beach, it doesn't matter if he go to the pool or not (this uses exactly the same syntax that the 2 first bullet points of TI) If you you want the full first bullet point to be a condition, then you would need something like this. Example 2: If we go to the beach this weekend, I’ll give you a special treat for being such a good son, you can go to swim to the new pool. In addition; if you swim in the new pool, I'll buy you an ice cream in that gas station in our way to home, you can choose the flavor you like the most. In this case the kid only get the ice cream if he go the beach AND go to the pool. This is the structure of the rule (Example 1): (condition), (effect 1), (clarification of effect 1) (connector), (effect 2), (clarification of effect 2) This would be needed for the first bullet to be a condition (Example 2): (condition), (effect 1), (clarification of effect 1) (connector); (new condition including effect 1), (effect 2), (clarification of effect 2) So the rule would need this to treat the first bullet point as a condition (equivalent to Example 2) When suffering a successful Attack—or being affected by any weapon or rule—that forces any ARM or BTS Rolls, the owner is immune to the special effects of the Special Ammunitions, treating them as Normal Ammunition. In addition; if the ammunition used was special, players can choose between making an ARM Roll or BTS Roll, choosing the most advantageous for them. I only see 1 reading here. Which other readings see you in these 2 bullet points? Both the second and fifth bullets are references, it refer to something that was explained before; but it doesn't force you to join 2 lines. You lack contextual information if you read them isolated, but those lines stand on their own. In the case of Stratoscloud is the same case, you have a reference, not a connector. So that line stand on its own; however i do think that's a syntax problem and the "Once this state..." should be in the above bullet point to have the right syntax. Examples of connectors in the rules: This one, the 2 first bullet points of TI. Or the 2 and 3rd bullet points of Stealth (talk about what happens if you declare any non-movement skill in the case described in the above bullet point) In CH:TO you have other one (That one also happens "During the game") Another connector, in G:Marionette (9+10); however this is not 100% necessary tho, without that one I think the meaning would be the same. An example of other unnecessary connector (bullet points 3 and 4 of G:Jumper Z Another unnecessary connector in G:Marionette (1 y 2) Other innecesary connector in G:Remote presence (5+6) There last few connector are doing nothing; joining those 2 bullet points doesn't modify the meaning. I've browsing the rules a bit and there are few connectors, the huge mayority of the bullet ponts are 100% independent (not counting references); and some connectors are there to make emphasis, not because they are needed; however a few does change the meaning. You have a point tho, this syntax should have been explained to the players clearly.
I think there's two conditions there. I was trying to call the second something else because of of the way it was used. But ultimately, the term I used, 'specific criteria' is a condition. I have to take issue with your analogies as I don't think they reflect what the rules are actually saying. We're going in circles. You assume the second line refers to the only condition from the first line. Which would be correct, if there is in fact, only one condition. My position remains that there are two conditions. Without special ammo, the first line does absolutely nothing. So for something to happen and for that line to function, SA is a condition. Let's try looking at this from another angle as I think there are rules in the English language for this. "In addition" is a conjunctive adverb. It adds one thought/sentence to another. An adverb usually alters a verb (an action word), an adjective, and other adverbs. To me, the verb in the previous line is to treat SA as NA. So "In addition" to that action, we choose our roll. I just keep coming to the same outcome. But my English 101 isn't as strong as I'd like it to be.
Ah ok... So you think there is 2 conditions here, I missed that. Checking the other thread I see you proposed this: Mind that to introduce the 2 conditionals there you are using "when" and "If"; however in our case there is no indication of conditional in the second line. In fact, they use dashes to add "--or being affected by any weapon or rule--" to save the comma to indicate the end of the condition. The second line is not a condition, it's a effect. Check what I wrote before about conditionals in english The bolded line is just what I'm saying; you have 2 effects independent of each other, so you treat SA as NA (it's already NA? then nothing happens) and then you can choose your roll. Examples are a good way to visualize it. Try to make a few examples up and let's compare them.
