Kerim Aydin wrote: > Michael wrote: >> You can deem all you like, but the rules will pay you no attention.
> There is a counterexample. The rules say nothing about choosing > nicknames. But if I deem my nickname to be something, the Rules pay > attention (CFJ 1361). The fact that there is one demonstrable > counterexample implies there may be others. I don't think this is a counter-example. When you "deem" your nickname to be PineappleLover, you do so by posting some announcement to this effect to the appropriate mailing list and the Herald pays the appropriate amount of attention, all as required by the rules. If you use "deem" to mean "say" or "announce", and then say something that the rules require us to pay attention to, then sure, it has an effect. But the rules do not require us to pay any attention to deemings about being a pineapple, and so you do not affect the game-state's current set of "deemings". Recall that I am not using "deeming" to include "choose" or "decide" or "announce", though the verb is also used that way in the ruleset. As per my previous message, a "deeming" is an interpretational gloss on a rule, or a legal fiction. (The fact that you think we should also be paying attention to CFJ 1361 is a great example of such. CFJ 1361 is a "deeming"; you picking your nickname is not.) In particular, the following is not a rule "A Player may, by announcement, assert that they are a particular species of fruit. From that point on, they are deemed to be of that species, while remaining a Player, in so far as remaining a Player is possible according to other rules." Until we get such a rule, or until you pass a proposal covering your specific instance of rules-recognised-deeming, or until a Judge insists on it and annotates a rule accordingly, then all pineapple-deemings are and remain fluff. Michael.
