Re: [s-b] [s-d] Oracle Report 22/06/07

[bd_ <bdonlan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 12:34:36PM +0200, Antonio Dolcetta wrote:
> Wow, we've had some busy Justice days.
> Here's a review of what happened.
> 
> Consultation 5
> 
> Supplicant: Comex
>  > If all Game Objects other than the Rules
>  > and the Player named Wonko were destroyed, would it
>  > be possible for me (the Supplicant of this Consultation)
>  > to become a Player?
> Unbeliever: Wonko
> 
> Assigned to: BobTHJ
> Answered: FALSE 21/06/2007 18.26
> Claimed inconsistent by BobTHJ 21 Jun 2007 17:33:01 -0700
> 
> Priest' Reasoning:
> I rule FALSE, as in no. Rule 1-4 indicates:
> 
>   "An External Force may become a Player by posting a message to a
> Public Forum containing a request to become a Player and a uniquely
> identifying name that e wishes to be known by. E may do this if and
> only if e fulfills the following requirements:
> 
>      * E is capable of passing a Turing Test
>      * E is not currently a Player
>      * E has a working e-mail address "
> 
> I believe Comex has demonstrated eir ability to meet all the
> requirements to become a player, if indeed e wasn't currently a
> player. However, bulleted point #2 above would prevent Comex from
> becoming a player for a second time, unless e first forfeited or
> otherwise lost eir player status.

I claim this is CONSISTENT. Should the external force referred to as 'Comex'
be destroyed, he/she/it would cease to be able to pass a turing test -
indeed, would no longer be able to take one at all.

> Consultation 7
> Supplicant: Optional
>  > A forum is invalid if it does not allow players to communicate.
>  > True or
>  > false?
> Unbeliever: Comex
> Reasoning:
> [1-9] "A Forum is any External Force that allows Outsiders to
> communicate.
> 
> Assigned to: BobTHJ
> Answered: TRUE 21/06/2007 18.26
> Claimed inconsistent by BobTHJ 21 Jun 2007 17:33:01 -0700
> 
> Priest' Reasoning:
> I rule TRUE. Communication is a very general term, and (even limited
> to the internet) may encompass a wide variety of possible activities.
> Therefore, I think it would be difficult to find an external force
> that would not allow some form of communication. However, were such an
> External Force to be found, it would not be valid as a forum.

I claim this is INCONSISTENT. Player =/= external force.

> -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
> 
> Assigned to: Wonko
> Answered: TRUE 21/06/2007 16.57
> 
> Priest' Reasoning:
> I rule TRUE. 

I claim this is CONSISTENT.

> 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
> 
> Assigned to: Wonko
> Answered: FALSE 21/06/2007 16.57
> 
> Priest' Reasoning:
> I rule FALSE. 

I claim this is CONSISTENT.

> -o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-
> 
> Consultation 10
> 
> Supplicant: Antonio
>  > If all Game Objects other than the Player named Wonko were
>  > destroyed, would it be possible for me (the Supplicant of this
>  > Consultation) to become a Player?
> Unbeliever: Wonko
> 
> Assigned to: BobTHJ
> Answered: FALSE 21/06/2007 18.26
> Claimed inconsistent by BobTHJ 21 Jun 2007 17:33:01 -0700
> 
> Priest' Reasoning:
> Again, I rule FALSE, using the same reasoning as my ruling for 
> Consultation #5.

I claim this is CONSISTENT for the same reasons as above.

> -o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-
> 
> Consultation 11
> 
> Supplicant: Comex
>  > True or false: Is Primo Corporation a player?
> 
> Assigned to: BobTHJ
> Answered: TRUE 21/06/2007 18.26
> Answer claimed inconsistent by Antonio 22 Jun 2007 10:43:42 +0200
> 
> Priest' Reasoning:
> With respect & apologies to Priest Wonko, I judge TRUE. Primo
> Corporation satisfied all the requirements for becoming a player per
> this Priest's "mystical interpretation of the rules":
> * Primo is an External Force. It's existance is not tied to B Nomic.
> It existed prior to it's joining B Nomic.
> * It posted a message to the public forum requesting to become a
> player, and designated the name it wished to be known by.
> * It was not already a Player.
> * It has a working e-mail address, the address of it's Corporate Forum.
> * It is capable of passing a Turning Test, see below.

I claim this is INCONSISTENT. While Primo Corporation is an external
force capable of passing a turing test, and it has a working email, it
has not posted to a public forum to join. Indeed, no rule authorizes an
officer of Primo corporation to cause it to take action in B Nomic at
all.

> -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?
> 
> Assigned to: Wonko
> Answered: FALSE 21/06/2007 16.57
> Answer claimed inconsistent by BobTHJ 21/06/2007 18.26
> Answer claimed consistent by Antonio 22 Jun 2007 10:43:42 +0200
> 
> Priest' Reasoning:

I claim this is INCONSISTENT. Although turing tests are designed for
computers, there is no reason in principle they could not be applied to
other entities.

> -o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-
> 
> Consultation 13
> Supplicant: BobTHJ
> {
> Question: True of false: Consultation #12 does not serve to prevent a
> corporation from becoming a player because it specifies that said
> corporation must pass "the Turing Test" instead of "a Turing Test"?
> Unbeliever: Wonko
> }
> Assigned to: Antonio (no other player eligible)
> Answered: FALSE 22 Jun 2007 12:14:45 +0200
> 
> Priest's Reasoning:
> The general formulation of Consultation 12 is somewhat unclear, and 
> indeed it was a candidate for ZOTTING for
> 
> this reason. However I support the decision I made as Oracle when I 
> decided against ZOTTING it because I find
> 
> there is no ambiguity in meaning, "the Turing Test" and "A Turing Test" 
> in the context of B Nomic are the
> 
> same, since "Turing Test" is in itself a non strictly defined idea, and 
> we have never explicitly defined a
> 
> specific Turning Test to test new players with.

I claim this is CONSISTENT.

> 
> -o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-
> 
> Consultation 14
> Supplicant: BobTHJ
> {
> Question: True or false: A Player need not be capable of passing a
> Turing Test in order to remain a player.
> }
> Assigned to: Wonko (no other player eligible)
> Answered: TRUE 21/06/2007 19.21
> 
> Priest' Reasoning:
> True. The Turing Test is a requirement to become a player. Nothing
> requires that you continue to fulfill these requirements after
> becoming a player (indeed, it is impossible to fulfill all the
> requirements for becoming a player after you've become a player,
> because one of them is that you can't already be a player).

I claim this is consistent.

> Consultation 16
> Supplicant: Zach
> {
> Question: True or False: The Administrator (or other ruling or
> governing body) may cause an External Force which is also a Player to
> no longer be a Player if said Player can no longer meet the
> requirements to become a Player.
> }
> Assigned to: BobTHJ
> Answered: FALSE 21 Jun 2007 18:32:47 -0700

I claim this is CONSISTENT.

> Consultation 17
> Supplicant: Antonio
> Question:
> {
> Supposing there are two
> Players, say A and B, where A is a single human being and B is a group
> of human beings that contains A, then if A and B vote for the same
> proposal only the most recent vote is counted. True or false ?
> }
> Reasoning:
> {
> B nomic has traditionally enforced the idea "one man, one vote"
> If
> a Primo style corporation were allowed to become a player any entity
> who is a player by itself and is also part of the corporation would
> have a number of votes >1
> Bear with me here:
> rule 2-2 states:
> - Any Player may submit a Vote on an Open proposal at any time. ...
> - The most recent Vote on a proposal by a Player is called that
> - player's Final Vote on that proposal
> the intent clearly being to allow only one vote from each player.
> by Rule 1-4
> - A Player is an Outsider
> and by Rule 1-3
> - An Outsider is an External Force
> So going back to the consultation's example Player A who is part of B is 
> actually resubmitting his Final vote
> 
> through B.
> }
> UNOFFICIAL Answered: FALSE 21 Jun 2007 21:00:03 -0600 (on discussion forum)
> UNOFFICIAL Answer claimed inconsistent by Antonio 22 Jun 2007 10:43:42 
> +0200 (consultation 17 has not been officially answered)

I intend to claim this consistent when it is posted to the business
forum.  Nowhere has A agreed to allow B's representative to override A's
votes, and if A is said representative, then A isn't claiming to change
their own votes anyway, so at worst A is attempting an illegal game
action.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

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