Re: [s-d] [s-b] Multiple names, part two.

[Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:24 PM, Gabriel Vistica <gvistica@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Murphy wrote:
>
>>
>> teucer wrote:
>>
>> > For each of the following names, I kick all players  who have that name
>> > and are not me in the ass: {{Marr965}},  {{compsciguy}}, {{JamesB}},
>> > {{Murphy}}, {{Gitchel, The One and Only  Respected One}}. In all cases,
>> > the kicks are for failing to obey the  requirements of Rule 2.
>> >
>> > [[Guys, you had three ndays to come up  with unique names. Only 0x44,
>> > formerly Rule --9999, chose to do so. (I'm  not kicking players who
>> > didn't post in the meantime, since kicking  people for not paying
>> > attention seems unsporting.) Note that the  validity of these kicks can
>> > only be determined pending 0x44's judgement  on CFI 123A1.]]
>>
>> I argue that these kicks are invalid, as "having uniquely  identifying
>> names" is not an action, and thus Rule 14 is silent on the  definition
>> of "must" in this context.
>>
>> CFI:  Multiple Kicks in the  Ass may be given in response to a failure
>> to act, provided that at least one  Kick in the Ass may be given in
>> response to  it.
>
> In addition, all the players named above had those names before you allegedly
> gained those names. As such, you should be the one being Kicked, not us.

Should be, absolutely. And the US should have beaten Slovenia, and the
designated hitter rule shouldn't exist. But unlike the rest of you, I
actually *have* a unique name (three or four of them, in fact - Craig
B. Daniel, Rule 700, Rule -9999, and possibly also Respected One), and
thus I have not spent three ndays breaking Rule 2. The rest of you
have. (Well, all of you except Wooble, whose name I didn't copy
because e wasn't playing, and 0x44, who chose to stop violating the
rules before getting kicked.)

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