spoon-business: RFJ 34 comments

[Jeff N Schroeder <jschrodr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

The statement to be ruled is, "The Player Joel is not in violation of 
R350/0."

>R350 does not require me to Randal. The first sentence states "The Player 
>known as Joel Uckelman is ordered to Randal once within 10 days after 
>this rule takes effect." There hasn't been a Player known as Joel 
>Uckelman since 16 February, and R350 did not exist prior to 19 February. 
>Though the Proposal existed before I changed my name, it was not updated 
>to reflect that change, so in the form it was adopted it simply does not 
>refer to me. Moreover, I cannot possibly be held accountable for the 
>proposer's negligence in failing to alter the Proposal as a result of my 
>name change, as the contents of unadopted Proposals are not binding. Nor 
>are Rule titles, for that matter: Though the Rule title contains my name, 
>Rule titles do not have the force of Rule.
>    Also, it should be noted that the only other such naming instance in 
>the Rules is in R208/1, which actually does refer to me, as "the Player 
>whose real name is Joel Uckelman". Clearly this refers, as there exists 
>a Player, namely Joel, whose real name is Joel Uckelman. For contrast, a 
>quick check of the Roster will verify that there does not exist a Player 
>known as Joel Uckelman.

Rule 204/1 contains the text:
"An Agent may initiate changing eir name to another uniquely identifying 
name by notifying the Administrator."
and 
Rule 2/0 contains the text:
"All game entities must have uniquely identifying names."

These rules cover how each game entity has a unique identifying name and 
how to change that identifier.  But the definition of a name in 
Merriam-Webster is:
 "1a : a word or phrase that constitutes the distinctive designation of 
a person or thing 
   b : a word or symbol used in logic to designate an entity"

By this definition it is clear that the name is just an identifier for 
the Player, and not the Player eimself.  The question now becomes is the 
Player Joel the same entity as the former Player Joel Uckelman. And is it 
known to the game that the Player Joel is the same entity as the former 
Player Joel Uckelman.

This question is more difficult in that we have to decide whether 
changing the name, according to the game rules, also changed the entity 
as viewable to the game.  This could have severe ramifications if the 
name change also changed the entity.  By the reasoning of the Plantiff:

">    Also, it should be noted that the only other such naming instance in
>the Rules is in R208/1, which actually does refer to me, as "the Player
>whose real name is Joel Uckelman". Clearly this refers, as there exists
>a Player, namely Joel, whose real name is Joel Uckelman. For contrast, a
>quick check of the Roster will verify that there does not exist a Player
>known as Joel Uckelman."

The claim follows that because there is no Player named Joel Uckelman, 
the Player Joel does not have to obey Rule 350/0.  This can be extended 
to reason that Joel Uckelman had Points and Objects and Offices within 
the game that did not belong to the Player Joel.  Rule 208/1 states the 
Player Joel Uckelman is the initial Administrator and provides means for 
electing a new Administrator.  The Rule also states that the Officer 
stays in Office until e resigns or is removed from eir Office by other 
means.  There was no election of a new Administrator and Joel is not the 
initial Administrator, therefore strictly according to the Rules, Joel 
cannot be the current Administrator.

Unless we conclude that the entity that was previously known to the game 
as Joel Uckelman is the same entity now knows as Joel.  It is clear that 
the other Players in the game know that Joel and Joel Uckelman are the 
same Player.  First there was no motion to add the Player Joel, the 
change was conducted via Rule 204/1 where Joel Uckelman stated his 
request to change his name to Joel.  Second, the Player Joel 
took possession of the Points, Objects and Offices that previously Joel 
Uckelman had obtained.  Third, there was no objection by any of the 
Players in any public forum to the transfer of Points, Objects and 
Offices to the new Player Joel.

By this reasoning it is clear that the Player Joel is the same entity as 
the previously known Joel Uckelman.  Joel has the same Points, Objects 
and Offices as Joel Uckelman and is bound by the same Rules as Joel 
Uckelman.  In addition, for the ease of convention and for the spirit of 
the game, this judgement is necessary in order to relieve many problems 
that could occur if it is determined that changing a name will relieve a 
Player of any responsibility to a Rule or Motion while maintaining eir 
Points, Objects and Offices at previous levels.

Thus I rule the statement "The Player Joel is not in violation of R350/0" 

FALSE

Jeff Schroeder