But doesn't that predicate perfect knowledge of the system, *and* a System that is perfectly suited to the campaign? I mean, we're talking Theory here after all - how do you *know* that the System you choose will be the most perfectly suited one for the game that you end up playing? (assuming, of course, that there's no Universal System of All that you can use.)

People make mistakes. People don't always know the rules back-to-front. The Rule of Unintended Consequences will occasionally spawn and bite people in the ass. This whole contentious monkey knife fight started when I asked what do you do when you realize the System is borked?

The choices I've been given have been:
- Choose another System (not always practical in the middle of a campaign).
- Systems can be perfect, and you're an Idiot for not using the Perfect System (not the most helpful suggestion).
- It's not the System's fault, it's your fault for choosing/not knowing the system (ditto).
- If the players want to do it, and the system allows it, suck it up (a corollary of 'The System cannot be wrong, even if it's flawed')
- It should have been a book, not a campaign (best evar!).

...but whatever you do, never ever ignore the Rule - if you do, the entirety of the player's contributions for the entire campaign are worthless.

So I think I'm just going to continue being a backwoods hick and keep the Golden Rule.