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

[Josiah Worcester <josiahw@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Friday 23 November 2007 08:46:01 Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I claim this answer is INCONSISTENT with established doctrine.
> 
> 
> On Nov 22, 2007 4:32 PM, Mike McGann <mike.mcgann@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > {{I answer Yes to Consultation 39}}
> >
> > Reasoning:
> >
> > By Rule 2-5:
> > "Any player may as a Game Action submit a Consultation."
> >
> > Is the AFO a Player?
> >
> > To answer: "Rule 1-4 states that an External Force may become a Player
> > by requesting to become a Player, and can only do so if he is capable
> > of passing a Membership Test (note the use of the singular)."
> >
> > Rule 3-15 says:
> > "All personal pronouns shall be taken to refer to entities of any
> > gender or of no gender regardless of the purported gender of the words
> > used"
> >
> > He is a personal pronoun. The AFO is an entity and it is of no gender.
> > It is legal to refer to the AFO as he, her, I, we, you, it, or they
> > (although some usages may be considered confusing or in bad form).
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > As an aside--can anyone provide proof that Hose and Wooble are unique
> > from all other sentient beings?
> >
> > - Priest Hose
> > _______________________________________________
> > spoon-business mailing list
> > spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> > http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Geoffrey Spear
> http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-business mailing list
> spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business
> 

I claim this is CONSISTENT with existing doctrine.
The AFO claims this is CONSISTENT with existing doctrine.

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