[s-b] Fwd: Oracle report

["Daniel Lepage" <dplepage@xxxxxxxxx>]

Whoops. Here it is officially.

-- 
Wonko

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Daniel Lepage <dplepage@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Jun 21, 2007 10:38 AM
Subject: Re: [s-b] Oracle report
To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx


>
> Consultation 6
> Supplicant: Comex
> > Is there a Consultation with a Question of:
>  > {{a forum is invalid if it does not allow players
>  > to communicate.}}?
> Reasoning: It's not a question, so how can it be answered?

I rule TRUE, i.e. that there is a Consultation with the given
Question. Any statement standing alone can be interpreted as
implicitly asking "is this statement true", and therefore any
Consultation that simply declares a fact should be treated as asking
whether the given statement is true or false. If the Priest of a
Consultation feels that it is not valid or cannot reasonably be
answered by a single True/False statement, e should request that the
Oracle ZOT it.

Note that this consultation itself does not have a statement that is
definitively a True/False question - a reinterpretation of the
question was necessary and, in my judgment, legal.

> -o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-
>
> Consultation 8
> Supplicant: Optional
> > Public fora may not be designated via a game action.  True or false?
> Unbeliever: Comex

I rule TRUE. While it is the case that any statement of the form
"Players may do X" with no qualification ought to be interpreted as
making X a game action, a statement that simply says "X may be done"
acts only as a definition to the effect that the event "X" can
sometimes happen. It does not mean that any entity may do X. At the
moment, this means that no entity has the power to designate new fora.
This is a problem that should be addressed within the ruleset as soon
as is convenient.

> -o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-
>
> Consultation 9
>
> Supplicant: Comex
> > All Proposals created since Rule 2-2 was last amended have Proposal
> > Numbers of null.  True or false?
> Reasoning:
> [2-2] "The Administrator must then assign it a new Proposal Number that is
> greater than all previously used Proposal Numbers as soon as e can."
> [1-10] "A Game Action is defined as any activity specified by the rules to
> be a Game Action."
> [1-15] "If a game action is not explicitly permitted in the rules, the game
> prohibits it."
> Unbeliever: Optional

I rule FALSE. I believe that any rule which asserts that someone MUST
do something implicitly permits that person to take that action when e
must. It does not, however, permit em to take that action at other
times. In the case of this specific question, "as soon as e can" means
"as soon as e is physically able to", not "as soon as another rule
gives em permission to".

> -o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-
>
> Consultation 12
>
> Supplicant: Zach
> > Is a cooperation a single entity, capable of passing the Turing test?

With apologies to Primo Corporation, I rule FALSE. "Turing test" is
not well-defined, and "the Turing test" even less so, as many
variations exist. Most, however, are geared towards judging the
difference between a human and a machine; this definition simply is
not applicable to other entities, such as portions or composites of
humans. My ruling, therefore, is that "capable of passing the Turing
test" should be interpreted to mean "is a human being", which is not
true of Primo Corporation.

That said, I do strongly feel that our ruleset should be amended so
that collective entities can become players, subject to restrictions
(for example, no player should be able to create a society containing
only emself and make it a player, nor should N players be able to form
N factorial distinct Societies and turn them all into players). But as
it stands right now, the ruleset does not permit this.

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