| 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