| Craig Daniel on Thu, 1 Jul 2010 14:30:47 -0700 (MST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| Re: [s-d] [s-b] Let's see what this does... |
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Jeff Gitchel <gitchel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > If a player insists on not having a name (though I don't think you can become un-named once you are a player) then they would not > be a player. Rule 26 states that the Roster lists ALL players and includes their names. Those without names cannot be listed and do > not fall into the set of All Players. You can't become a player without specifying a name, and the roster must list your name, but I don't see why it can't list the fact that there are two players for whom that field is empty. (Or, if anybody had the title "Respected One" in a lasting fashion, why the roster couldn't list the fact that they had two names. In fact, it would have to.) I can easily make a list with zero items on it, after all. (Also, I don't insist on not having a name, I just had mine yanked away from me by the ruleset and now I can't get it back by any known mechanism short of deregistration and reregistration because you can't change something that doesn't exist.) - no name but you can call me teucer if you like _______________________________________________ spoon-discuss mailing list spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss