Re: [s-b] [s-d] Answer to Consultation 39

[Josiah Worcester <josiahw@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Friday 23 November 2007 10:12:33 0x4461736864617368 wrote:
> You didn't send this to the public forum.
> 
> Josiah Worcester wrote:
> > On Friday 23 November 2007 08:46:01 Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> >   
> >> I claim this answer is INCONSISTENT with established doctrine.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Nov 22, 2007 4:32 PM, Mike McGann <mike.mcgann@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>     
> >>> {{I answer Yes to Consultation 39}}
> >>>
> >>> Reasoning:
> >>>
> >>> By Rule 2-5:
> >>> "Any player may as a Game Action submit a Consultation."
> >>>
> >>> Is the AFO a Player?
> >>>
> >>> To answer: "Rule 1-4 states that an External Force may become a Player
> >>> by requesting to become a Player, and can only do so if he is capable
> >>> of passing a Membership Test (note the use of the singular)."
> >>>
> >>> Rule 3-15 says:
> >>> "All personal pronouns shall be taken to refer to entities of any
> >>> gender or of no gender regardless of the purported gender of the words
> >>> used"
> >>>
> >>> He is a personal pronoun. The AFO is an entity and it is of no gender.
> >>> It is legal to refer to the AFO as he, her, I, we, you, it, or they
> >>> (although some usages may be considered confusing or in bad form).
> >>>
> >>> To become a player, an External Force has to fulfill the following 
> >>>       
> > requirements:
> >   
> >>> * He is capable of passing a Membership Test, although he may not be
> >>> required to take said test
> >>> * He is not currently a Player
> >>> * He has a working e-mail address
> >>>
> >>> Items 2 and 3 have been done--it is item 1 that is in contention. Is
> >>> it capable of passing a Membership Test? Any or all of:
> >>>
> >>> * Proof of uniqueness from all other known sentient beings
> >>> * Refer to one's self in the first person singular without being awkward
> >>> * Send, and receive a reply to, an email to another entity
> >>> * Be capable of thought as an individual.
> >>>
> >>> Since it only has to actually pass one of these, it can pass with #3
> >>> quite easily. If the AFO states an email address to use for
> >>> communication, and it responds to all email sent to that address, it
> >>> cannot be shown that it fails #3.
> >>>
> >>> Therefore, the AFO is a Player. The Registrar still has the power to
> >>> reject the registration if he chooses.
> >>>
> >>> Also, I find that the requirements for becoming a Player need a major
> >>> revision. They seem to be written in a style that makes it easy for
> >>> anyone to become a Player but to have some (but vague) power to reject
> >>> admission when needed. I feel that the latter part does not work.
> >>>
> >>> As an aside--can anyone provide proof that Hose and Wooble are unique
> >>> from all other sentient beings?
> >>>
> >>> - Priest Hose
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> spoon-business mailing list
> >>> spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> >>> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business
> >>>
> >>>       
> >>
> >> -- 
> >> Geoffrey Spear
> >> http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> spoon-business mailing list
> >> spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> >> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business
> >>
> >>     
> >
> > I claim this is CONSISTENT with existing doctrine.
> > The AFO claims this is CONSISTENT with existing doctrine.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > spoon-discuss mailing list
> > spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> > http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
> >   
> 
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
> 

I make the alleged action in the public forum.
The AFO does the same.


_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business