Just a provocative questions at the moment but might the GNS approach apply to other non-creative agenda driven rules systems?
I am currently writing a paper on rules theory in law and through mental cross-wiring I am beginning to see that systems of legal rules also allow for outcomes linked to Gamism (moderated competition and conflict resolution), Narrativism (whose voice emerges in issues of justice) and Simulationism (do forensic rules model real fact circumstances or merely construct virtual facts).
Anyway, quite off point but I have found that legal theory is really unsophisticated when it comes to rules systems especially in discussion of different outcomes and approaches.
Have you read Dworkin? Also, I don't know where it is, but Robert Lipkin's response to him is incisive.
It's been a while, but I seem to recall that there was a lot of intelligent theorizing about such things--it just didn't really get into the courtroom.
I'm pretty broad in my application of creative agenda to entertainment broadly, but I think it's stretched a bit too far to take it where you want to go. You can get there by analogy, but analogies always break down and have aspects that really come out wrong when you push them.
--M. J. Young
Quote from: scobieAnyway, quite off point but I have found that legal theory is really unsophisticated when it comes to rules systems especially in discussion of different outcomes and approaches.
Consider that the courts in most western countries are about defeating the opposition, not about finding the truth of a situation. I believe it's the French courts that have procedures/rules for determining the truth of a matter? It might be a good idea to research them and perhaps courts of inquiry?
I hope that helps!