Mark Walsh on Mon, 9 Jan 2006 12:48:49 -0600 (CST)

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

[s-d] RE: [s-b] [auto] Antonio votes

On: 1/9/06 3:52:12 AM Antonio sent:
> Subject: [s-b] [auto] Antonio votes
> Antonio's votes:
> Motion 332/0: Shuffling Ordered List Defined           : Against
> actually I think I'm against this, as it's completly dependant on the
initial order of the objects being ordered, which kind of defeats the
They're ordered from 1 to however many there are.
If it comes to numbering the Player list for comex's Tweak,
I'll sequentially number the names, with Antonio being 1 and
Wonko being 16 (this provided that noone joins or leaves the
game in the interim).
The initial order of items is moot, anyway.
What's important is that a verifiable starting point is extant,
and that X number of random changes are made to the starting
order of X items, so that the randomness of the resulting list 
order cannot be questioned.
The steps in the Rule created by the Proposal call for the dice
after the list is ordered.
I'm only interested in fairness, which is to say, true randomness,
and this method provides it, and verifiably.

spoon-discuss mailing list