| Jamie Dallaire on Tue, 23 Dec 2008 20:00:34 -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 |
Oh, and also note that there are A LOT of Consultations that were assigned to the original priest that I (wrongly) assigned them to, if the correct answer to this Consultation is indeed no. On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 9:59 PM, Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>wrote: > 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