Peter Cooper Jr. on Mon, 9 Jan 2006 12:20:58 -0600 (CST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-d] Wonko votes

Mark Walsh wrote:
> I don't get the objection to the dice rolling. Peter also
> said 'all that dice rolling".
> I would think that the old script for drawing Tiles
> must have generated a random number for each
> tile drawn.

The tiles script just put random tiles on people's racks. The Tiler
trusted it, and the other players trusted the Tiler to give the results
honestly. (And even with the dice roller script, I suspect that any player
wanting to perpetrate fraud could forge a message to look like it came
from the dice roller. I once tried to verify the PGP signature on it, and
it didn't verify, but I may have had something not set up right.)

> A single message to dicemaster will generate all
> the random numbers needed. It's not like you have
> to send 17 requests to get 17 numbers.

Right... I guess I don't really object to the dice rolling, since I think
a consistent authoritative randomness generator is a good idea. I mainly
don't think that you need a definition of shuffle. If you're instructed to
put things in a random order, and p326 passes, then that new rule will
require you to use the dice roller to give us a random order. But the
exact algorithm doesn't matter, as long as the probabilities are correct.

Peter C.
spoon-discuss mailing list