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

[0x4461736864617368 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

You didn't send this to the public forum.

Josiah Worcester wrote:
> 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
>   

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