[Retros] The paradigmic divide on (retro) Rules and Conventions

Kevin Begley kevinjbegley at gmail.com
Mon Jun 16 19:19:55 EDT 2014


This is beginning to read like a deliberately bad parody.

*"Had  ['the scribes'] done their job, the conventions would have never
been named 'conventions' but probably something more appropriate like
'selection rules'." *

Let's break that down...
1) The function of "the scribes" *was *to copy, read amend, explain, and
protect the law.
2) Because they did not perform their function, your disfavored jargon
("retro conventions") gained the upper hand over your preferred jargon
("retro selection rules"). and
3) The reader is given absolutely zero cause to care about either term.

In fact, the reader has probably lost all reason to care, because this
author has been carelessly inventing terminology (e.g., the Digital Boards
Theory, where the word "digital" reads like the worst assault on logic ever
performed, in the interest of obtaining a meaningless acronym).

You keep describing the bread, in terms that no reader need care, as if to
avoid discussing what's between the slices.

Forget the scribes, and worry about your function:  explain what is the
significant difference in your approach, and persuade readers why they
should want to consider it.

Lovecraft managed to describe Cthulhu, without any need to waste time
developing an aimless jargon. Steinbeck would not have lamented so long
about the hard row that the tumbleweeds of his own jargon must hoe.

If your approach might actually constitute an improvement, why have you
deliberately hidden it away in useless jargon? I can endure the fog only
for a purpose, and you have yet to show any product.

Let's cut to the quick...
1) pour what you have into a shot glass.
2) let the reader sample it, and
3) only then, will anyone care to read about your distillation process.

On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Guus Rol <grol33 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear retro-friends,
> You will have noticed that there exist no uniform agreement on the
> understanding of the relationship between Rules (Laws) and Conventions in
> the retro-field. I will give my view on where the schism originates and
> what it entails primarily. On this level of abstraction I do not expect to
> deliver irrefutable proof or conceptual superiority. I only invite you to
> evalute both approaches on the basis of their effectiveness and expansive
> capability.
> The "other" paradigm is based on a common understanding of the concept
> "Convention". An appropriate definition may be (Mirriam Websters): *A
> custom or a way of acting or doing things that is widely accepted and
> followed. *May be a similar description will be found somewhere in the
> rule books and explanations by FIDE and WFCC. In such an environment, the
> conventions will obviously give way to everything published under the more
> formal headings of approved "Laws", "Rules" and "Regulations". It is also
> predictable that such a starting point would generate the ideas that
> are currently prevalent in the retro community.
> "My paradigm" is fundamentally different. It didn't come from reading
> every bit of law and jurisprudence to be found but from studying the
> subject of retro-analysis and more in particular of retro-activity (retro
> uncertainties) through its architecture. I found that - without the
> conventions - the subject lacked an essential command & control structure
> necessary to bridge the gap between retro-problem and "FIDE law". I
> concluded that a rigid formal decisioning system was needed, operating not
> in contention with "FIDE law" but performing a distinct reduction task all
> of its own. Strange enough, the commands in this control system were more
> or less the same as could be found in what regulatory bodies had
> baptized "Conventions". *This left me with no other option than
> to redress the underprivileged conventions to their mandatory role
> of  "controllers of the retro-active universe"*. In my view, this is what
> should have been done by the scribes of the these conventions in the first
> place from a true understanding of the nature of the retro-field. Had they
> done their job, the conventions would have never been named "conventions"
> but probably something more appropriate like "selection rules". And may be
> they would have written some conventions alongside of them on subjects that
> truly begged for "widely accepted customs"..
> There is much more to say about this paradigmic schism as the gap gets
> wider when the application scope gets larger. If you read my first post
> on "the basics of the relationship between rules and conventions" (actually
> the 2nd one by that name) you can find the difference on the chess board
> already on the first page. It is up to you to chose. And you can always
> change your mind, of course.
> Best wishes, Guus Rol.
> _______________________________________________
> Retros mailing list
> Retros at janko.at
> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://one.pairlist.net/pipermail/retros/attachments/20140616/8eb6ee78/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Retros mailing list