Eric Gerlach on 14 Jan 2002 01:24:24 -0000


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: So this dosent happen again


At 07:48 PM 2002-01-13 -0500, you wrote:
On 1/13/02 at 11:37 PM ID Scott wrote:

>Proposal: {{Create a rule entitled: __Limitation of Voting__
>which contains the following:
>{{Only entites specifically allowed by these rules may cast votes.
>
>Players may vote.}}
>}}
>
>
>Proposal: {{Create a rule entitled: __Power to the Gremlins!__
>which contains the following:
>{{If the entity known as "the Plague of Gremlins" exists, then it may
> vote as specified elsewhere in these rules. Else, this rule deletes
>itself}}
>}}
>
>cheers,
>Iain

If the "this" that this is trying to prevent happening again has to do with imaginary friends, might I note that there still doesn't exist a proper definition of "player" in the rules. There's the turing test requirement, and Our Admin's de facto email address requirement, but nothing that, say, identifies a "player" as being tied to a single personality or state of consciousness.

No, but they have to (on their own) post to a public forum their intent to become a player. Yes, this discriminates against the non-corporeal, but it's currently in the rules. You don't like it, change it.

I think that covers this problem.

Bean