Jamie Dallaire on Tue, 23 Dec 2008 19:59:33 -0700 (MST)


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

Re: [s-d] [s-b] Not one, but TWO consultations regarding our wonderful "error-free" ruleset


On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 7:49 PM, Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Warrigal wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Warrigal <ihope127+w@xxxxxxxxx<ihope127%2Bw@xxxxxxxxx>>
> wrote:
> >> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Charles Schaefer
> >> <chuckles11489@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> Consulation: Is Charles the validly assigned Priest of Consultations
> 168 and
> >>> 169?
> >> I assign this Consultation the number 174, and will assign it a Priest
> >> as soon as possible.
> >
> > I assign this Consultation to Murphy.
>
> First, the Oracle's dice roll (indicating that Charles was to be
> assigned to 168 and 169) was not sent by the Oracle (it was sent by the
> dice server), so it was not directly effective.
>
> Second, the Oracle's subsequent message (misinterpreting the roll and
> assigning Murphy to 168 and 169) was presumably an honest error (no one
> having argued to the contrary), and the procedure was sufficiently
> random to satisfy the ordinary-language definition of "random".  (Rule
> 5E46 regulates selections of random numbers, but not random selections
> in general.)  Thus, this message was valid.
>
> I answer NO.


Nice. I did not expect this answer, but it does sound consistent. The only
thing I'm not sure about is if it's really random, given that this reasoning
does not mention that I "randomly" assigned 168 and 169 to Murphy rather
than Charles not simply because I misread the random number generated for
168 and 169, but because I accidentally applied the number generated for 165
(Murphy) to 168 and 169 (which should have been Charles), and vice versa.

In that light, at the time I actually attempted to assign the Consultations
to Murphy, I was not randomly selecting Murphy. I was selecting Murphy very
specifically because of earlier dice rolls (just the wrong ones). It could
be argued that this does not constitute a random selection, even though the
dice rolls were.

I don't know whether to call this consistent or inconsistent (this is
spoon-discuss, so I can hear other arguments before I call it anything).

Thoughts?

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