Re: [s-d] [s-b] Let's see what this does...

[Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 9:49 PM, Gabriel Vistica <gvistica@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Per Rule 2/0, "All game entities must have uniquely
> identifying names". Since you apparently have no name, but another player already had no name, I hereby give the player posting
> from "quesmarktion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" a Kick in the Ass for starting a process that ended with them taking a player name already in
> use.

This, I believe, is invalid for two reasons. First, because not having
a name isn't a name, so the non-unique status of namelessness is
irrelevant - although not having a uniquely-identifying name is still
Kick-worthy because it has been requested that people who aren't me
not break the rules, so the fact that it's not unique isn't not enough
to make it unkickable. Second, because while the offense is
Kick-worthy, I have already delivered a Kick over this, and the
Registrar (who hasn't recognized any of this nonsense yet) isn't
supposed to recognize multiple Kicks for one offense.

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