On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Alex Smith wrote: > Anyway, the upshot of all this is that despite looking reasonable, the > current definition of randomness simply doesn't work.
Which definition? The non-existent one currently not in the rules, or one I proposed? I'll write a longer post on the cases, but let me add one for you: pseudo-random sequences have been judged legal. Pseudo-random number generation (like the dice server I think?) has multiple steps. In which exact step is the random number "chosen"? And what if the computer (again, even a public dice server) "pauses" between steps? Your opinion on this will help me address the rest.
