Re: [s-b] Answer to Consultation 39

[0x4461736864617368 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I also believe this answer is INCONSISTENT with established doctrine.
Consultation 26-31 establish that factions are not players. Consultation
30 seems to establish that an Agreement is not distinct from those
covered within it.


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
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>   

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