David E. Smith on Mon, 4 Dec 2006 11:31:39 -0700 (MST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-d] [s-b] The Slim Shady Clause

On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 02:01:07 -0500, Jake Eakle <jseakle@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> "eir names" should probably be "eir name", unless we can have two now. Also,
> while the administrator could stop this, I think this technically allows
> someone to change eir name from eir old name to multiple new names, since
> recgnitions are probably (or could be) simultaneous, so the old name would
> be the same in each case, and thus valid. This probably isn't a real issue
> though.

I submitted a fix for the typo.

I don't think the second part would be a real problem, because I don't  
(right off, at least) see a way to exploit it. You either mean  
something like this:

* I change my name from The Dave to Just Plain Dave
* I change my name from The Dave to I Love Tacos

or something like this:

* I change my name from The Dave to Just Plain Dave
* I change my name from Just Plain Dave to I Love Tacos

In the first example, the second name change never happens, because  
the first one will be recognized first (assuming events occur in the  
order listed in the email). After the first name change, there is no  
longer a player named "The Dave," so the second name change cannot  
resolve as there is no legal target.

The second example is legal, but basically pointless. Unless there's  
some game event between the first and second name changes, or  
something that could happen that requires your name to be a certain  
value, and the intent of my proposal is to keep that from happening.  
(The Administrator can, and hopefully would, refuse to acknowledge  
such a name change, under the "breaking stuff" clause.)

That also should cover A->B->A name changes, where a player changes  
eir name, does something under the new name, then changes it back.

I probably should add in a section stating that the "old" name and the  
"new" name are intended to be the same person, so that someone can't  
get out of judging an RFJ (for example) but I'm not really sure how to  
word it.


spoon-discuss mailing list