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