• chuckleslord@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    9 days ago

    No, they are cheating, just with the blessing of the public. Like gerrymandering isn’t a thing you should be able to do, fullstop, but it isn’t something normally possible to do in California.

    • 🔍🦘🛎@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      Working within a broken system isn’t cheating though. Cheating means you’re breaking the rules.

      • chuckleslord@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 days ago

        Yes, there’s a California rule that states that redistricting is done by a non-partisan commission. This explicitly sidesteps that process. They’re breaking a rule with permission but they’re still breaking a rule.

        If your DM rules that you can have two actions in a turn without reason, it’s still cheating.

        • Petter1@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          No, it is not, DM has absolute power and can do whatever he wants, this is no cheating, this is just how DnD works.

          And, in a true/healthy democracy, rules can be changed by demo as they have the cracy. Anything else would be cheating.

        • 🔍🦘🛎@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          9 days ago

          I’d argue this is explicitly not cheating. Revising the rules though a democratic process IS democracy.

          The D&D example is closer since it doesn’t explicitly call for buy-in from the whole table, but the first and only rule of D&D is to have fun with the DM being chief facilitator. The PHB and DMG are just suggestions. If this favoritism caused others in the party to feel slighted, then it would be ‘cheating’.