Re: [s-d] [s-b] Call for Inquiry

[Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Gabriel Vistica <gvistica@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I submit the following CFI:
>
>
> Statement: { Players MAY NOT change eir name to "Respected One". }
>
> Argument: { "Respected One" is an entity defined in the rules (defined in Rule
> 49.B.4), just as "The Oracle" is an entity defined in the rules (Rule 38).
> Therefore, per Rule 47, players may not change eir name the "Respected One",
> just as ey may not change eir name to "The Oracle". }

Gratuitous: Respected One is not defined by the rules to be an entity
at all - rather, the string {Respected One} is defined as being a
title. Titles are explicitly names.

If the title Respected One is held by a player, that player has two
names - their original one, and also Respected One. In this case,
Respected One would not be a unique identifier if adopted by another
player, which would put the second claimant in violation of Rule 2.
(The first player would not be in violation, since e also has another
name that presumably is uniquely identifying.) If no player is named
(titled) Respected One, however, then there is in fact no entity with
that name. (Not even in potentia as with The Oracle when that ministry
is vacant.) Ergo, the name is valid.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss