[s-d] Oracle Report 22/06/07

[Antonio Dolcetta <antonio.dolcetta@xxxxxxxxx>]

Wow, we've had some busy Justice days.
Here's a review of what happened.

Consultation 5

Supplicant: Comex
 > If all Game Objects other than the Rules
 > and the Player named Wonko were destroyed, would it
 > be possible for me (the Supplicant of this Consultation)
 > to become a Player?
Unbeliever: Wonko

Assigned to: BobTHJ
Answered: FALSE 21/06/2007 18.26
Claimed inconsistent by BobTHJ 21 Jun 2007 17:33:01 -0700

Priest' Reasoning:
I rule FALSE, as in no. Rule 1-4 indicates:

  "An External Force may become a Player by posting a message to a
Public Forum containing a request to become a Player and a uniquely
identifying name that e wishes to be known by. E may do this if and
only if e fulfills the following requirements:

     * E is capable of passing a Turing Test
     * E is not currently a Player
     * E has a working e-mail address "

I believe Comex has demonstrated eir ability to meet all the
requirements to become a player, if indeed e wasn't currently a
player. However, bulleted point #2 above would prevent Comex from
becoming a player for a second time, unless e first forfeited or
otherwise lost eir player status.

NOTE: I've browsed back through the archives prior to when I became a
player, but it appears several of the messages pertaining to this
consultation are unavailable. Therefore, I am unsure of the
circumstances that led to this consultation.
-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-

Consultation 6
Supplicant: Comex
 > Is there a Consultation with a Question of:
 >{{a forum is invalid if it does not allow players
 > to communicate.}}?
Reasoning: It's not a question, so how can it be answered?

Assigned to: Wonko
Answered: TRUE 21/06/2007 16.57

Priest' Reasoning:
I rule TRUE, i.e. that there is a Consultation with the given
Question. Any statement standing alone can be interpreted as
implicitly asking "is this statement true", and therefore any
Consultation that simply declares a fact should be treated as asking
whether the given statement is true or false. If the Priest of a
Consultation feels that it is not valid or cannot reasonably be
answered by a single True/False statement, e should request that the
Oracle ZOT it.

Note that this consultation itself does not have a statement that is
definitively a True/False question - a reinterpretation of the
question was necessary and, in my judgment, legal.

-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-

Consultation 7
Supplicant: Optional
 > A forum is invalid if it does not allow players to communicate.
 > True or
 > false?
Unbeliever: Comex
Reasoning:
[1-9] "A Forum is any External Force that allows Outsiders to
communicate.

Assigned to: BobTHJ
Answered: TRUE 21/06/2007 18.26
Claimed inconsistent by BobTHJ 21 Jun 2007 17:33:01 -0700

Priest' Reasoning:
I rule TRUE. Communication is a very general term, and (even limited
to the internet) may encompass a wide variety of possible activities.
Therefore, I think it would be difficult to find an external force
that would not allow some form of communication. However, were such an
External Force to be found, it would not be valid as a forum.

-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-

Consultation 8
Supplicant: Optional
 > Public fora may not be designated via a game action.  True or false?
Unbeliever: Comex

Assigned to: Wonko
Answered: TRUE 21/06/2007 16.57

Priest' Reasoning:
I rule TRUE. While it is the case that any statement of the form
"Players may do X" with no qualification ought to be interpreted as
making X a game action, a statement that simply says "X may be done"
acts only as a definition to the effect that the event "X" can
sometimes happen. It does not mean that any entity may do X. At the
moment, this means that no entity has the power to designate new fora.
This is a problem that should be addressed within the ruleset as soon
as is convenient.

-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-

Consultation 9

Supplicant: Comex
 > All Proposals created since Rule 2-2 was last amended have Proposal
 > Numbers of null.  True or false?
Reasoning:
[2-2] "The Administrator must then assign it a new Proposal Number that is
greater than all previously used Proposal Numbers as soon as e can."
[1-10] "A Game Action is defined as any activity specified by the rules to
be a Game Action."
[1-15] "If a game action is not explicitly permitted in the rules, the game
prohibits it."
Unbeliever: Optional

Assigned to: Wonko
Answered: FALSE 21/06/2007 16.57

Priest' Reasoning:
I rule FALSE. I believe that any rule which asserts that someone MUST
do something implicitly permits that person to take that action when e
must. It does not, however, permit em to take that action at other
times. In the case of this specific question, "as soon as e can" means
"as soon as e is physically able to", not "as soon as another rule
gives em permission to".

-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-

Consultation 10

Supplicant: Antonio
 > If all Game Objects other than the Player named Wonko were
 > destroyed, would it be possible for me (the Supplicant of this
 > Consultation) to become a Player?
Unbeliever: Wonko

Assigned to: BobTHJ
Answered: FALSE 21/06/2007 18.26
Claimed inconsistent by BobTHJ 21 Jun 2007 17:33:01 -0700

Priest' Reasoning:
Again, I rule FALSE, using the same reasoning as my ruling for 
Consultation #5.
-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-

Consultation 11

Supplicant: Comex
 > True or false: Is Primo Corporation a player?

Assigned to: BobTHJ
Answered: TRUE 21/06/2007 18.26
Answer claimed inconsistent by Antonio 22 Jun 2007 10:43:42 +0200

Priest' Reasoning:
With respect & apologies to Priest Wonko, I judge TRUE. Primo
Corporation satisfied all the requirements for becoming a player per
this Priest's "mystical interpretation of the rules":
* Primo is an External Force. It's existance is not tied to B Nomic.
It existed prior to it's joining B Nomic.
* It posted a message to the public forum requesting to become a
player, and designated the name it wished to be known by.
* It was not already a Player.
* It has a working e-mail address, the address of it's Corporate Forum.
* It is capable of passing a Turning Test, see below.

This Priest determines that the phrase "is capable of passing a turing
test", while perhaps was added to the rules with the intention of
limiting play to human persons, actually does not limit the ability
almost any External Force to become a Player for the following
reasons:

The phrase is un-specific about which Turing Test the External Force
must be capable of passing. As Priest Wonko pointed out in
Consultation 12, there is an infinite variety of possible Turing Tests
that could be devised. A Turing Test simply compares a human to a
non-human to determine if an external observer can determine which is
which.

As an example, I could devise a Turing Test that uses gravity as its
basis for determination. I could push a human and a rock off a cliff,
and both would fall. An external observer who only knew if the objects
in question floated or fell would be unable to distinguish between the
rock and the human. This perhaps might be a foolish means of
administering a Turing Test, but it would be a Turing Test
nonetheless.

Secondly, the external force need only be 'capable' of passing a
Turing Test. It need not actually pass such a test. Given a suitable
test, almost any External Force would have the capability of passing
that test, even by sheer coincidence, after attempting that test an
infinite number of times. Using a text chat Turing Test between a
human and a monkey (who presses random keys on the keyboard) and given
a set of infinite attempts, there would be at least one such test
where the observer was unable to distinguish between the two.

Finally, capable of passing a Turing Test does not in any way signify
"is a human being" as Priest Wonko suggests in Consultation #12.
Indeed, the entire purpose of a Turing Test is to determine if a
non-human entity can suitably fool a human into believing it is one of
its own kind. I'm sure many in the Artificial Intelligence community
would find a determination that 'only a human can pass a Turing Test'
to be quite offensive.

-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-

Consultation 12

Supplicant: Zach
 > Is a cooperation a single entity, capable of passing the Turing test?

Assigned to: Wonko
Answered: FALSE 21/06/2007 16.57
Answer claimed inconsistent by BobTHJ 21/06/2007 18.26
Answer claimed consistent by Antonio 22 Jun 2007 10:43:42 +0200

Priest' Reasoning:
With apologies to Primo Corporation, I rule FALSE. "Turing test" is
not well-defined, and "the Turing test" even less so, as many
variations exist. Most, however, are geared towards judging the
difference between a human and a machine; this definition simply is
not applicable to other entities, such as portions or composites of
humans. My ruling, therefore, is that "capable of passing the Turing
test" should be interpreted to mean "is a human being", which is not
true of Primo Corporation.

That said, I do strongly feel that our ruleset should be amended so
that collective entities can become players, subject to restrictions
(for example, no player should be able to create a society containing
only emself and make it a player, nor should N players be able to form
N factorial distinct Societies and turn them all into players). But as
it stands right now, the ruleset does not permit this.

-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-

Consultation 13
Supplicant: BobTHJ
{
Question: True of false: Consultation #12 does not serve to prevent a
corporation from becoming a player because it specifies that said
corporation must pass "the Turing Test" instead of "a Turing Test"?
Unbeliever: Wonko
}
Assigned to: Antonio (no other player eligible)
Answered: FALSE 22 Jun 2007 12:14:45 +0200

Priest's Reasoning:
The general formulation of Consultation 12 is somewhat unclear, and 
indeed it was a candidate for ZOTTING for

this reason. However I support the decision I made as Oracle when I 
decided against ZOTTING it because I find

there is no ambiguity in meaning, "the Turing Test" and "A Turing Test" 
in the context of B Nomic are the

same, since "Turing Test" is in itself a non strictly defined idea, and 
we have never explicitly defined a

specific Turning Test to test new players with.

-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-

Consultation 14
Supplicant: BobTHJ
{
Question: True or false: A Player need not be capable of passing a
Turing Test in order to remain a player.
}
Assigned to: Wonko (no other player eligible)
Answered: TRUE 21/06/2007 19.21

Priest' Reasoning:
True. The Turing Test is a requirement to become a player. Nothing
requires that you continue to fulfill these requirements after
becoming a player (indeed, it is impossible to fulfill all the
requirements for becoming a player after you've become a player,
because one of them is that you can't already be a player).
-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-

Consultation 15
Supplicant: Antonio
{
The rules of B Nomic allow BobTHJ to act on behalf of the group of
persons knows as "Primo Corporation", True of False ?
Unbeliever: BobTHJ
}
Assigned to: Wonko (no other player eligible)

Priest' Reasoning:
-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-

Consultation 16
Supplicant: Zach
{
Question: True or False: The Administrator (or other ruling or
governing body) may cause an External Force which is also a Player to
no longer be a Player if said Player can no longer meet the
requirements to become a Player.
}
Assigned to: BobTHJ
Answered: FALSE 21 Jun 2007 18:32:47 -0700

Priest' Reasoning:
I rule FALSE. Rule 1-4 gives the Administrator permission to prevent a
player from becoming a player, and also gives the Administrator the
authority to recognize a request name change. However, the rule does
not give permission for the Administrator to remove Player status from
an External Force that is already a Player. The only call to meet the
requirements is when the External Force initially becomes a player.
-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-

Consultation 17
Supplicant: Antonio
Question:
{
Supposing there are two
Players, say A and B, where A is a single human being and B is a group
of human beings that contains A, then if A and B vote for the same
proposal only the most recent vote is counted. True or false ?
}
Reasoning:
{
B nomic has traditionally enforced the idea "one man, one vote"
If
a Primo style corporation were allowed to become a player any entity
who is a player by itself and is also part of the corporation would
have a number of votes >1
Bear with me here:
rule 2-2 states:
- Any Player may submit a Vote on an Open proposal at any time. ...
- The most recent Vote on a proposal by a Player is called that
- player's Final Vote on that proposal
the intent clearly being to allow only one vote from each player.
by Rule 1-4
- A Player is an Outsider
and by Rule 1-3
- An Outsider is an External Force
So going back to the consultation's example Player A who is part of B is 
actually resubmitting his Final vote

through B.
}
UNOFFICIAL Answered: FALSE 21 Jun 2007 21:00:03 -0600 (on discussion forum)
UNOFFICIAL Answer claimed inconsistent by Antonio 22 Jun 2007 10:43:42 
+0200 (consultation 17 has not been officially answered)

Priest' Reasoning:
(UNOFFICIAL)
This issue has been debated for several months on the Agoran forums
(as partnership type entities have been participating there since
February I believe), so I borrow some logic from there. In legal
contexts, an organization formed by a binding agreement of its members
it treated as a separate legal person with its own collective rights
and responsibilities. Translated into B Nomic terms, such an
organization constitutes an External Force distinct from the External
Forces that comprise its membership. Therefore, when the organization
votes, it represents a different Player then a member who votes
independently as a Player.

It is possible a case could be made that if a Player votes for
themselves and then the same player makes a vote on behalf of an
Organization that only the first of such votes is counted (since the
same Player posted both votes), however that is beyond the scope of
this Consultation.

_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss