[s-d] Re: [s-b] CFI: HowToRollDice/1

[Rainbow Wolfe <rainbowdreamwolf@xxxxxxxxx>]

Maybe you could settle things by looking away and pulling a pairs of socks 
from your draw? For low probabilities you could try to draw a matching pair 
while blindfolded.

- Rainbow Wolfe (who, again, really should sleep)

On 5/9/05, Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> On May 8, 2005, at 11.31 PM, Raelus wrote:
> 
> > **The version as of 2005-05-08 20:22:29 of HowToRollDice was an unfair
> > SORC.
> > **
> 
> I suppose I ought to make an official rebuttal to this. So, Analysis by
> Plaintiff:
> 
> First, I wish to note that this is a blatant attempt by Raelus to score
> Genechips for a passed CFI, as evidenced by the fact that the version
> of HowToRollDice which e refers to was created by em shortly before it
> became illegal to do such a thing. On those grounds alone this is a
> frivolous CFI and deserves votes either of NO or REFUSED.
> 
> Secondly, I argue that the statement is false. I argue this on the
> grounds that I have every intention of settling random number disputes
> in the fairest and most equitable way possible, namely by using the
> official Dice Roller. The one exception to this is in thwarting
> Raelus's blatant attempt to smear my reputation for personal gain; in
> this case, I feel that a 10-amplitude penalty is "just desserts", and
> is perfectly fair under the circumstances. I do not intend to interfere
> with other matters of chance.
> 
> Finally, I claim that regardless of the truth of the statement, it is
> clearly moot. It refers to an older version of the page that was never
> officially enacted by Gambly, and as such the question of whether or
> not it is "fair" is no more relevant to the game than the question of
> whether my grabbing socks without looking from my drawer would be a
> fair way to decide issues. In either case, it is something that does
> not currently exist in the game, and until somebody tries to make it
> exist it is not necessary to pass judgment on it.
> 
> Hence there is a good reason to vote NO, and many good reasons to vote
> REFUSED, and I hope that the jury will reach the sensible conclusion on
> this matter.
> 
> --
> Wonko
> 
> "In headlines today, the dreaded killfile virus spread across the
> country adding 'aol.com <http://aol.com>' to people's Usenet kill files 
> everywhere. The
> programmer of the virus still remains anonymous, but has been nominated
> several times for a Nobel peace prize."
> -- Mark Atkinson
> 
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-business mailing list
> spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business
>
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss