Perry Likes

[Bill Kohler]

In my experience most ASLers recognize the authority of Perry Sez's. Yet with the evolution of technology and the Internet, now there is perhaps another layer of quasi-(un)officialness to consider: Perry Likes. What I'm referring to here is posts in the Rules & Errata forum, posts whose content is principally rule interpretation and which Perry Cocke has "liked".

When any ordinary person "likes" a post, there can be any number of reasons--some obvious, some obscure. But when Perry--the rules guru at MMP--likes a post in the Rules & Errata forums, a post that isn't banter or humor but predominantly rule discussion, there's some implication attached to that action.

Absent further explanation of a particular "like", and proceeding on the belief that Perry is intending to be helpful, I would view the "like" on such a post as meaning that Perry is substantially in agreement with at least part of the remarks made therein. It isn't as authoritative as a Perry Sez, but I still think it provides useful direction.

Two recent examples:
Entrenchment attempts and mandatory entrenchment status: (This was subsequently verified with a Perry Sez.)

Reread the first sentence in its entirety:
. . .
"Any squad may place a foxhole above itself by making a DR ≤ 5."--COWTRA doesn't give you the option of placing it beneath yourself. So you are required to place the foxhole counter above the unit.
. . .

Canister fire from VBM:

These blue dots are the vertices that I think can be targeted by Canister from VBM (with range for this purpose being measured from the CAFP). For the rear CA and left side CA, use the mirror images of these.
. . .

Would it be helpful for us to create a single "Perry Likes" thread in the Perry Sez folder that contains links to these various likes? (Or is it enough that these posts can be found within their various threads, and can be treated however the readers wish to treat them?) I'm undecided myself, but think it's an interesting idea to consider.

 

[Mister T]

The Q&A system is sufficient.

 

[Actionjick]

The Q&A system is sufficient.

What Perry likes in a post may be too ambiguous to interpret how he views the matter in question. I agree with Mister T.

 

[Actionjick]

In my experience most ASLers recognize the authority of Perry Sez's. Yet with the evolution of technology and the Internet, now there is perhaps another layer of quasi-(un)officialness to consider: Perry Likes. What I'm referring to here is posts in the Rules & Errata forum, posts whose content is principally rule interpretation and which Perry Cocke has "liked".

When any ordinary person "likes" a post, there can be any number of reasons--some obvious, some obscure. But when Perry--the rules guru at MMP--likes a post in the Rules & Errata forums, a post that isn't banter or humor but predominantly rule discussion, there's some implication attached to that action.

Absent further explanation of a particular "like", and proceeding on the belief that Perry is intending to be helpful, I would view the "like" on such a post as meaning that Perry is substantially in agreement with at least part of the remarks made therein. It isn't as authoritative as a Perry Sez, but I still think it provides useful direction.

Two recent examples:
Entrenchment attempts and mandatory entrenchment status: (This was subsequently verified with a Perry Sez.)

I actually think Perry is mistaken as far as his interpretation of the Entrenching rule is concerned. Perry is not infallible but I do accept the finality of his decision. The same went for Mac Sez bitd. I may have disagreed with the conclusion but played it the way it was called. Someone has to make the decision and their word is final. I learned that from dealing with Chiefs and officers.

If one disagrees with a Sez the solution is House Rules.

 

[Bill Kohler]

What Perry likes in a post may be too ambiguous to interpret how he views the matter in question.

In the real world (outside ASL), we often have to deal with imperfect knowledge and uncertain data--"Does that girl like me?" and "How much do masks help with Covid?" and "If I vote for this politician, what is she going to do when in office?" But imperfect knowledge doesn't mean no knowledge--one can still infer useful things from incomplete answers.

 

[von Marwitz]

What Perry likes in a post may be too ambiguous to interpret how he views the matter in question. I agree with Mister T.

I am of the same opinion and agree with Mister T.

I even go further by stating that the 'Q&A' system is better than a two tiered system of 'Q&A' and 'Likes' could be.

von Marwitz

 

[Bill Kohler]

I actually think Perry is mistaken as far as his interpretation of the Entrenching rule is concerned.

As I've said elsewhere, I think the ruling that Perry ultimately gave is "smack on" given the way the rule was worded. (Whether or not a squad should be able to not be Entrenched--that's a different question, but I found the wording of the rule quite clear, especially given COWTRA.)

Regarding the topic in this thread, if you consider the "like" of Perry in that Entrenching thread, it perfectly predicted the ruling that Perry ultimately gave. (And it could've saved us four long pages of ensuing discussion.) So I think there is value in knowing which rule posts Perry "likes". But of necessity, the GS forum abridges the list of "likers" when more than three people "like" a post, so spotting the Perry "likes" can be difficult--hence the potential value of a list of Perry Likes.

 

[Robin Reeve]

Perry licks is rarer and should be recorded.

 

[Actionjick]

In the real world (outside ASL), we often have to deal with imperfect knowledge and uncertain data--"Does that girl like me?" and "How much do masks help with Covid?" and "If I vote for this politician, what is she going to do when in office?" But imperfect knowledge doesn't mean no knowledge--one can still infer useful things from incomplete answers.

For instance consider my post regarding Canister fire from VBM: when this situation arises, if there's no official clarification, I'll play it like I proposed in the post that Perry "liked". To me, that's not "too ambiguous to interpret": in fact I find it extremely helpful.

In the real world girls rarely like ASL nerds!!

 

[imported_RobO]

As I've said elsewhere, I think the ruling that Perry ultimately gave is "smack on" given the way the rule was worded. (Whether or not a squad should be able to not be Entrenched--that's a different question, but I found the wording of the rule quite clear, especially given COWTRA.)

Regarding the topic in this thread, if you consider the "like" of Perry in that Entrenching thread, it perfectly predicted the ruling that Perry ultimately gave. (And it could've saved us four long pages of ensuing discussion.) So I think there is value in knowing which rule posts Perry "likes". But of necessity, the GS forum abridges the list of "likers" when more than three people "like" a post, so spotting the Perry "likes" can be difficult--hence the potential value of a list of Perry Likes.

You're always free to curate such a list and post it here or publish it online somewhere. Whether players rely on it or not will be up to them of course. Some players take the position that even a Q&A, because it is not officially published, is just an opinion and need not be accepted. My sense is that the Perry Sez are pretty widely respected but a Perry Likes collection would be less so. It might be more trouble than it's worth.

And personally I don't want to know what Perry licks!

 

[Actionjick]

But of necessity, the GS forum abridges the list of "likers" when more than three people "like" a post, so spotting the Perry "likes" can be difficult--hence the potential value of a list of Perry Likes.

You can access the full list of likes by tapping the list. Or clicking it I suppose. I use my phone.

 

[Actionjick]

Perry licks is rarer and should be recorded.

Who Perry licks should be a private matter between him and the lickee !

Sorry Robin.

 

[Actionjick]

As I've said elsewhere, I think the ruling that Perry ultimately gave is "smack on" given the way the rule was worded. (Whether or not a squad should be able to not be Entrenched--that's a different question, but I found the wording of the rule quite clear, especially given COWTRA.)

Regarding the topic in this thread, if you consider the "like" of Perry in that Entrenching thread, it perfectly predicted the ruling that Perry ultimately gave. (And it could've saved us four long pages of ensuing discussion.) So I think there is value in knowing which rule posts Perry "likes". But of necessity, the GS forum abridges the list of "likers" when more than three people "like" a post, so spotting the Perry "likes" can be difficult--hence the potential value of a list of Perry Likes.

I've liked many posts that I don't agree with for various reasons, well written, interesting viewpoints or whatever.

 

[Ric of The LBC]

Who Perry licks should be a private matter between him and the lickee !

How many licks does it take Perry to get to the center of a rule?

 

[Actionjick]

How many licks does it take to the center of a rule?

Harry on 3rd Rock From the Sun knew how many licks it took to get to the center of a marble. We could ask him, a Harry Sez!

 

[Actionjick]

What Perry likes in a post may be too ambiguous to interpret how he views the matter in question. I agree with Mister T.

The ambiguity is in what the reader is interpreting as to what part of the post is being liked. This is filtered by the viewpoint of the reader not necessarily the liker. Like may not equal agree or correct.

 

[Bill Kohler]

What Perry likes in a post may be too ambiguous to interpret how he views the matter in question. I agree with Mister T.

The ambiguity is in what the reader is interpreting as to what part of the post is being liked. This is filtered by the viewpoint of the reader not necessarily the liker. Like may not equal agree or correct.

Yes, we can suggest hypothetical cases in which it might not be possible to infer what Perry likes in a post.

But in the two real cases I referenced--the two data points I know about--we learn quite a lot from those "likes".

 

[von Marwitz]

Perry licks is rarer and should be recorded.

Truth told!
Almost everybody around here got Klas-whacked bout dem rulz (Someone has to keep us awake and alert after all...). Only few got a licking by Perry.

von Marwitz

 

[Actionjick]

Yes, we can always suggest hypothetical cases in which it might not be possible to infer what Perry likes in a post.

But in the two real cases I referenced--the two data points I know about--we learn quite a lot from those "likes". We need not toss the baby out with the bathwater.

I would say the more involved the post is that is being liked the less likely it is to know the object of the like.
As with anything else in the system you are free to view it as you like and use House Rules as you wish. As was stated up thread many players do not consider Perry Sez to be an official part of the system and not all players have access to them or even know that they exist. If a TD wishes to use PS that is at his discretion but IMO a full list of them should be provided to the attendees in advance.

What may seem obvious to you is not always obvious to everyone else.
This was exemplified by those interpretations of the Foxhole rules different from yours by some extremely experienced players. This is also where I think you are misusing or misunderstanding COWTRA. Remember it is concentrate on what the rules allow not on what they don't specifically prohibit.

Regardless enjoy the game and remember to roll low.

 

[CTKnudsen]

Now when is someone going to meld the Q&A into the eRB, that's my question. It would be a big undertaking, mostly because so many of the Q&As would require extensive examples to illustrate the relevant points.