spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: So this dosent happen again

["Donald Whytock" <dwhytock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 1/13/02 at 11:37 PM ID Scott wrote:

>Proposal: {{Create a rule entitled: __Limitation of Voting__
>which contains the following:
>{{Only entites specifically allowed by these rules may cast votes.
>
>Players may vote.}}
>}}
>
>
>Proposal: {{Create a rule entitled: __Power to the Gremlins!__
>which contains the following:
>{{If the entity known as "the Plague of Gremlins" exists, then it may
> vote as specified elsewhere in these rules. Else, this rule deletes
>itself}}
>}}
>
>cheers,
>Iain

If the "this" that this is trying to prevent happening again has to do with imaginary friends, might I note that there still doesn't exist a proper definition of "player" in the rules.  There's the turing test requirement, and Our Admin's de facto email address requirement, but nothing that, say, identifies a "player" as being tied to a single personality or state of consciousness.  Otherwise, not only are imaginary friends valid, equally valid are (with reference to a currently popular movie, name withheld to avoid plot spoilage) hallucinations.  Tying playerness to states of consciousness or personalities eliminates these, while not discriminating against sufferers of multiple personality disorder. (Like me.) (Stop that.)

But I'm telling you right now...if Dad the Lawyer comes back from the grave and wants to play, I'm gonna get annoyed if y'all tell him no.

						Glotmorf