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

[Eric Gerlach <egerlach@xxxxxxxxxx>]

At 07:48 PM 2002-01-13 -0500, you wrote:
> 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.

No, but they have to (on their own) post to a public forum their intent to 
become a player.  Yes, this discriminates against the non-corporeal, but 
it's currently in the rules.  You don't like it, change it.

I think that covers this problem.

Bean