|Antonio Dolcetta on Tue, 10 Jan 2006 04:26:14 -0600 (CST)|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|Re: [s-d] RE: [s-b] [auto] Antonio votes|
Mark Walsh wrote:
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 theinitial order of the objects being ordered, which kind of defeats the purpose 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 startingorder 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. Triller
I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to say that you want to cheat in the ordering. I'm just saying that your proposal has a loophole in it that permits whoever does the initial ordering to cheat. "Sequentially" is too generic a term, it _may_ mean "in the order you find them" or it may mean "anything is good as long as every item is associated to a number from 1 to X, where X is the number of items, and no items are associated to the same number".
For an example it would be perfectly legal IMHO to start with a 1 for Wonko and end with 16 for Antonio.
Even so it would still be good, as once you have a fixed list your algorithm ensures a truly random outcome.
But it's nowhere said that you have to decide this initial order BEFORE rolling the dice, so you can do it after rolling, mixing and matching and generating any arbitrary result. I think you can only do this the first time you get to shuffle a list of items, as the next time they will be already numbered and your proposal says that in that case you have to use that sequence.
-- Antonio http://gelo.dolcetta.net _______________________________________________ spoon-discuss mailing list spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss