Mark Walsh on Tue, 10 Jan 2006 08:37:05 -0600 (CST)

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

Re: [s-d] Antonio votes

On: 1/10/06 4:26:08 AM Antonio sent:
> Subject: Re: [s-d] RE: [s-b] [auto] Antonio votes
> 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.
That's kinda how I feel about it too. the initial ordering really doesn't
make a difference, as long as it's fixed before the dice.
> 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
And that seems to be the biggest beef (although Wonko has other
issues with the dice server in general due to past experience; e does
make some valid points). Maybe I'll reword it and try again next.

And don't worry about the West of House faux pas. IIRC, I had
you dead 3 switch tosses before you actually were at one point.
This not from not reading the rules, but from not checking your
stats before acting on them.


spoon-discuss mailing list