Re: [s-b] Consultation 75: Answer

[Josiah Worcester <josiahw@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Friday 28 December 2007 18:00:04 Anything McGee wrote:
> Greetings again, everyone. While I am not entirely sure whether Codae was
> legitimately the Minister of Questions (and thus whether I was validly
> assigned this Consultation), below is my Answer to Consultation 75.
> 
> 
> Answer: TRUE.
> 
> First, Wooble's message requesting to become a Player stated that he wished
> to be "known by the unique name 'Wooble.'" (See
> 
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/archives/spoon-business/spoon-business-200707/msg00022.html.)
> The reasoning in Consultation 75, then, is faulty.
> 
> Further, while Rule 1-4 states that "An External Force may become a Player
> by posting", among other things, a "uniquely identifying name that e wishes
> to be known by", the rules do not define the words "name" and "nickname".
> (Rule 1-4 does provide regulations regarding which characters are
> permissible and how they are recorded, but not what a "name" actually is.)
> Thus, I turned to the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines a nickname as
> a "name which is given to a person . . . as a supposedly appropriate
> replacement for or addition to the proper name." In other words, a nickname
> is a type of name and is wholly sufficient for requesting to become a
> Player. Even if Wooble had used the words that are used in Consultation 75,
> he would still be a Player known as Wooble.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Anything McGee
> 
> 
> 
> > {
> > Question:  Is there a Player whose name is Wooble?
> >
> > Reasoning:  When Wooble reregistered, he specified the nickname Wooble.
>  The Rules state that a joining Player must specify a uniquely identifying
> name.
> > }

I claim this as consistent.
_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business