Re: [s-b] Not one, but TWO consultations regarding our wonderful "error-free" ruleset

[Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Warrigal wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Warrigal <ihope127+w@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Charles Schaefer
>> <chuckles11489@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Consulation: Is Charles the validly assigned Priest of Consultations 168 and
>>> 169?
>> I assign this Consultation the number 174, and will assign it a Priest
>> as soon as possible.
> 
> I assign this Consultation to Murphy.

First, the Oracle's dice roll (indicating that Charles was to be
assigned to 168 and 169) was not sent by the Oracle (it was sent by the
dice server), so it was not directly effective.

Second, the Oracle's subsequent message (misinterpreting the roll and
assigning Murphy to 168 and 169) was presumably an honest error (no one
having argued to the contrary), and the procedure was sufficiently
random to satisfy the ordinary-language definition of "random".  (Rule
5E46 regulates selections of random numbers, but not random selections
in general.)  Thus, this message was valid.

I answer NO.
_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business