BB2016 Rules - Seasons Completed start at zero or one?

[dode74]

Quite possibly. I did tag Andy as well but only James responded.

Edit for link: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1547860 ... 543115135/

[Jorgen_CAB]

Perhaps we can get some official answer... I for one would like to know why it is so ambiguously written.

[Jorgen_CAB]

Well the answer so far was not very informative... basically I don't remember and do what is written in the book.

That basically set us back at square one...

The question was pretty much a leading one... never give an answer in you question if you want the one answering it actually give a thoughtful answer.

A better simpler question would have been...

During the Downtime phase the Death Zone rule book say that a player only roll for "Wanting to Retire" after they completed two seasons.

When does a player count as having completed a season in regard to this roll?

This would have been forcing a more thoughtful answer. I just want to know what their intention is in this particular case.

[dode74]

His words were: "your interpretation sounds right" and "your interpretation is right as far as I remember, but I haven't got the rules in front of me. Go by what's written, I'd say!"

My interpretation was: "As written, during the first Downtime every player has a Seasons Completed box which contains a 0 until he is redrafted, at which point it contains a 1. That means for the first two sets of Downtime you are rolling against a 0 and then a 1, meaning no player can fail a Wants to Retire roll until the third set of Downtime."

Until we get something clearer this is as close to a definitive answer as we have.

[Jorgen_CAB]

His words were: "your interpretation sounds right" and "your interpretation is right as far as I remember, but I haven't got the rules in front of me. Go by what's written, I'd say!"

My interpretation was: "As written, during the first Downtime every player has a Seasons Completed box which contains a 0 until he is redrafted, at which point it contains a 1. That means for the first two sets of Downtime you are rolling against a 0 and then a 1, meaning no player can fail a Wants to Retire roll until the third set of Downtime."

Until we get something clearer this is as close to a definitive answer as we have.

Problem is that this is not how people will generally read the rules... they will see two seasons and that is how they will do it. Most people will not rules lawyer the text like you have done. People will go by intuition from what they read.

Hence an official clarification for an ambiguous text is needed. A "your interpretation sounds right" is not an answer to anything. It clearly implies a huge margin of uncertainty. He clearly did not remember the rules and had no time to look it up and obviously would not like to give a ruling on Facebook like that.

In general I don't care if it is two or three seasons... I just don't believe that they intended it to be that way... Either way it is written poorly.

[dode74]

Problem is that this is not how people will generally read the rules... they will see two seasons and that is how they will do it.

That's not what most of the responses to the FB thread have been.

I do agree clear guidance is necessary.

[Jorgen_CAB]

Problem is that this is not how people will generally read the rules... they will see two seasons and that is how they will do it.

That's not what most of the responses to the FB thread have been.

I do agree clear guidance is necessary.

I don't see how three people on facebook represent the common player who read the rules in their lonesome.

I have not heard anyone in real life that argued it your way. Everyone see Two Seasons and go with that as far as I know. That is people who just read the rules and not been influenced by anyone else's opinion.

[harvestmouse]

This is a typical way of over reading the rules.

It is pretty clear to me that whether a player has played in "1" or "15" games makes no difference. If a player is there at the completion of a season you simply add one to the number of seasons that player played. Anything else is just reading something which is not really in the text.

I like what you did there...........totally blew over the verb vs adjective argument and threw in a noun! In this sense it would be the same as the adjective.........which is a different use than the rules.

Can we please have clarification on whether the verb in question is a past tense verb or a past participle? And if there is a uniform use of the past tense or past participle? And if there has been past participle usage, can we please clarify whether that's the present perfect or passive? And and and if there has been present perfect AND passive usage, does it mean the same?

"The player has completed 3 seasons" "3 seasons have been completed" "3 seasons have been completed by the player"

GW...sort your sh#t out!

[Jorgen_CAB]

This is a typical way of over reading the rules.

It is pretty clear to me that whether a player has played in "1" or "15" games makes no difference. If a player is there at the completion of a season you simply add one to the number of seasons that player played. Anything else is just reading something which is not really in the text.

I like what you did there...........totally blew over the verb vs adjective argument and threw in a noun! In this sense it would be the same as the adjective.........which is a different use than the rules.

Can we please have clarification on whether the verb in question is a past tense verb or a past participle? And if there is a uniform use of the past tense or past participle? And if there has been past participle usage, can we please clarify whether that's the present perfect or passive? And and and if there has been present perfect AND passive usage, does it mean the same?

"The player has completed 3 seasons" "3 seasons have been completed" "3 seasons have been completed by the player"

GW...sort your sh#t out!

Don't you think this is more a convenience of logistics than anything else... if a player is on the team when the season ends he is recognised as having completed a season. Otherwise you need to record keep if a player was there at the start of the season or not. How many games would a player have to miss in order to not complete a season, one... two or more games?!? Will a player who have a MNG count as not completed a season?

No... this is just a logical simplification of a straight forward game mechanic, not very hard to understand.

[dode74]

I don't see how three people on facebook represent the common player who read the rules in their lonesome.

I have not heard anyone in real life that argued it your way. Everyone see Two Seasons and go with that as far as I know. That is people who just read the rules and not been influenced by anyone else's opinion.

Oh please. I've not claimed those who responded were representative of everyone, and neither should you claim that those people who you have spoken to are. As for "not been influenced", I'm sure those you spoke to were asked an entirely open and non-leading question, right?

Regardless, "how most people will do it" is not an indication of how it is supposed to be done.

[harvestmouse]

This is a typical way of over reading the rules.

It is pretty clear to me that whether a player has played in "1" or "15" games makes no difference. If a player is there at the completion of a season you simply add one to the number of seasons that player played. Anything else is just reading something which is not really in the text.

I like what you did there...........totally blew over the verb vs adjective argument and threw in a noun! In this sense it would be the same as the adjective.........which is a different use than the rules.

Can we please have clarification on whether the verb in question is a past tense verb or a past participle? And if there is a uniform use of the past tense or past participle? And if there has been past participle usage, can we please clarify whether that's the present perfect or passive? And and and if there has been present perfect AND passive usage, does it mean the same?

"The player has completed 3 seasons" "3 seasons have been completed" "3 seasons have been completed by the player"

GW...sort your sh#t out!

Don't you think this is more a convenience of logistics than anything else... if a player is on the team when the season ends he is recognised as having completed a season. Otherwise you need to record keep if a player was there at the start of the season or not. How many games would a player have to miss in order to not complete a season, one... two or more games?!? Will a player who have a MNG count as not completed a season?

No... this is just a logical simplification of a straight forward game mechanic, not very hard to understand.

Don't ask me...I'm the worst person in the world at understanding rules I've never played or interpreting difficulties. I'm renowned for misunderstand the meaning (when I read the rules for example I thought a 1 always failed meant you always failed..no rrs, no nothing!)

I think cyberelf had a point though from a grammar aspect (though I doubt GW staff saw the problem). Verb refers to the player where as the adjective refers to the event...so there is a difference. Writing rules isn't easy, it really isn't. You know in your head what you mean and given indefinite space you could write it down. However putting your thoughts onto paper in a concise way that keeps the reader from going blurry eyed and daydreaming off...isn't.

Really though...I don't really have a bone in this fight.........just agree with the general consensus that it could be written better. By the time or if ever I play this rule then it would be online and you guys would have it sorted.

[Jorgen_CAB]

I don't see how three people on facebook represent the common player who read the rules in their lonesome.

I have not heard anyone in real life that argued it your way. Everyone see Two Seasons and go with that as far as I know. That is people who just read the rules and not been influenced by anyone else's opinion.

Oh please. I've not claimed those who responded were representative of everyone, and neither should you claim that those people who you have spoken to are. As for "not been influenced", I'm sure those you spoke to were asked an entirely open and non-leading question, right?

Regardless, "how most people will do it" is not an indication of how it is supposed to be done.

I agree that how people interpret it and how it is suppose to be done is not he same thing... I don't think I ever claimed that. I only brought it up becasue you did...

My question to other people have basically been... how does it work, as if I had no idea how it worked at all (non-leading question). But I only asked about five persons that question and that is a rather small sample.

It is my belief that allot of people if not even the majority will misinterpret this rule. So far everyone misinterpreted the rule as you if roll after you played two seasons.

[dode74]

I only brought it up becasue you did...

I refer you to this post: "Problem is that this is not how people will generally read the rules... they will see two seasons and that is how they will do it." You brought it up.

It is my belief that allot of people if not even the majority will misinterpret this rule.

Maybe, maybe not. The fact is that still has no bearing on the intent. There are a lot of rules like that: it's one of the reasons the NAF has a clarifications page.

[Jorgen_CAB]

I only brought it up becasue you did...

I refer you to this post: "Problem is that this is not how people will generally read the rules... they will see two seasons and that is how they will do it." You brought it up.

It is my belief that allot of people if not even the majority will misinterpret this rule.

Maybe, maybe not. The fact is that still has no bearing on the intent. There are a lot of rules like that: it's one of the reasons the NAF has a clarifications page.

Most people that I know don't even know what NAF is... pretty sure a good chunk of BB players never look at rules online at all except for official errata and FAQ, if even that...

And yes... allot of people will not read the rules as literally as you do and instead go by what the text infer. That means two seasons is two seasons and that will logically be two seasons. What the roster say will not matter... adding one to the number when you roll is not hard math. The reason is that it make perfectly logical sense to do it that way.

[dode74]

Then tell them what it is! And the fact that they don't know what it is doesn't change the fact that there are plenty of rules which require clarification.

allot of people will not read the rules as literally as you do and instead go by what the text infer

First, I think you are making assumptions about how people read the rules - some will read one way, others will read another. That simply shows that clarity is needed.
Second, we infer and the rules imply. You are inferring 2 seasons, the rules do not imply it. In fact, they fairly clearly state when you check (first part of Downtime) and when you add one to the number (last part of Downtime) - it states quite clearly that you "add 1 to the number of seasons they have completed" at the redrafting stage, yet you are somehow concluding that one should be added before that stage.

The reason is that it make perfectly logical sense to do it that way.

It makes perfectly logical sense to roll for the pass before the interception, and yet...
I have to ask, though: why is it illogical that a player should want to retire after 3 instead of 2 seasons? Seems to me the number of seasons is arbitrary.