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

["Jamie Dallaire" <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>]

nttpf, pikhq

On 11/23/07, Josiah Worcester <josiahw@xxxxxxxxx> 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