Gabriel Vistica on Tue, 13 Jul 2010 15:28:09 -0700 (MST)


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

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


I fail to see how the second player would be in violation of Rule 2, which 
states that all game entities must have uniquely identifying names. The second 
player, while sharing a name with the first player, would still possess a 
uniquely identifying name, and would therefore, at least in my opinion, not be 
in violation of Rule 2. Unfortunately, we don't have two players with the same 
title, so we can't exactly send this to Judgment now, can we?



----- Original Message ----
> From: Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Tue, July 13, 2010 2:13:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Call for Inquiry
> 
> 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
> 


      
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss