Kieron Jarvis on 3 Oct 2000 04:38:12 -0000 |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: RFJ 1 |
If Joel rules against RFJ1 then he may not be able to definitively prove himself to be a Player either. If he's not a Player then he is not Administrator (R208). I don't know whether he has sent a message to the list stating that he desires to be a Player (R209). I haven't seen one since I joined. I'm not going to call an RFJ on this. I am not attacking Joel. I do want to avoid a situation where weeks later we find that Joel is not officially a Player and has been voting etc and RFJing as a Player. So, I'll trust him to do the right thing or let someone else call the RFJ. XnJester -----Original Message----- (Mon, 02 Oct 2000) Thus Spake Joel Uckelman: > I assign number 1 to the RFJ I made yesterday, and select myself as Judge: > > Those that have declared emselves Players are not Players. > . . . > . . . so I want to be sure I am ruling > correctly. If anyone would like to make further argument why my > interpretation is incorrect, I would be glad to consider it before making > the judgment (tomorrow evening, probably). I think perhaps we should ask the question, are there any players at all? I could submit a Request for Judgement on the following statement: The Player called Joel Uckelman is incapable of passing the Turning Test, and thus is not a player. Since Joel's status as a player is called into question, could he be a judge? And who would administer the Turing Test? Perhaps we need an Officer in Charge of Administering Turing Tests. Of course I won't submit such an RFJ lest, for that act of sabotage, I be crucified. ;) God -- Adam Tomjack adamtj@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.adamtj.com