William P. Berard on Fri, 23 Nov 2007 01:07:53 +0100 (CET)

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

Re: [s-d] [s-b] Answer to Consultation 39

Le 22 nov. 07, à 21:32, Mike McGann a écrit :

> (...)
> To become a player, an External Force has to fulfill the following 
> requirements:
> * He is capable of passing a Membership Test, although he may not be
> required to take said test
> * He is not currently a Player
> * He has a working e-mail address
> Items 2 and 3 have been done--it is item 1 that is in contention. Is
> it capable of passing a Membership Test? Any or all of:
> * Proof of uniqueness from all other known sentient beings
> * Refer to one's self in the first person singular without being 
> awkward
> * Send, and receive a reply to, an email to another entity
> * Be capable of thought as an individual.
> Since it only has to actually pass one of these, it can pass with #3
> quite easily. If the AFO states an email address to use for
> communication, and it responds to all email sent to that address, it
> cannot be shown that it fails #3.
> Therefore, the AFO is a Player. The Registrar still has the power to
> reject the registration if he chooses.
> Also, I find that the requirements for becoming a Player need a major
> revision. They seem to be written in a style that makes it easy for
> anyone to become a Player but to have some (but vague) power to reject
> admission when needed. I feel that the latter part does not work.

I'm new here, so I do not want to look like the newbie that waltz in 
and give his two cents worth of an opinion without much knowledge of 
the situation, but, without wanting to state any opinion or take sides 
regarding the AFO (since I'm barely starting to grasp what this is 
about and, by the way, would greatly appreciate if anyone could brief 
me up on it), I have a couple of points regarding these paragraphs :

It seems to me that item #3 of the membership test is redundant with 
the third requirement needed to become a player. If someone or a group 
of people have "a working email address", he/she/they will fullfill 
membership test #3 as they will be able to send a receive a reply to an 
email to another entity.

This, and the fact that membership tests lie on "all or any" of the 
clauses, makes it so that an External Force fulfilling Item 3 (being 
able to send and receive email) will  more or less automatically 
fulfill item 1 (membership test). Priest Hose is using this reasonement 
to give a positive answer to the consultation.

One could also argue that if an organisation wants to apply as a 
player, item #2 could become tricky to deal with, as, although the 
organisation is not currently a Player, it might be composed of 

I definitely agree that the "Playership" requirements needs to be 
revised, I am thinking along the way of having a membership test based 
on applying to a public forum, the application being accepted if it 
passes without N objections and/or with M supporters. what do you 
think? It would definitely go along the lines of making it easy to 
become a player but leave some power to reject applications.


spoon-discuss mailing list