|ID Scott, Science 99 on 14 Jan 2002 13:40:20 -0000|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: So this dosent happen again|
> 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. But it does, I think, stop completly random entities voting. A workable defenition of a player is left to the student :-) cheers, Iain >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.