On Mon, 14 May 2012, omd wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Thanks. CFJ in question is 1361:
> >
> > "It is my view that, for the purposes of R559, a nickname is a name that
> > a Player chooses for emself, that can be reliably used to pick em out in
> > the full range of Agoran contexts. On this view, arbitrary designations
> > by other Players, while they make succeed in referring to another
> > Player, do not consitute nicknames of those Players."
>
> Oddly enough, this seems to directly contradict the (Zefram-era)
> existing annotation:
>
> [CFJ 1361 (called 7 May 2002): Purporting to assign a new nickname,
> previously unused to refer to any entity, to another player is
> successful, but does not displace the target's existing name or
> nickname.]
>
> It also contradicts multiple later CFJs: 1882, 2840, and especially 2487.
Actually, I think these are all in agreement. They all basically say
"whatever term is most commonly used is the nickname; and we defer to
the person to tell us what it is (and change it), but if there's some
confusion, it's whatever is the most prevalent."
> But my prior assumption in this case was a bit different (and perhaps
> unreasonable if you're conflating it with whether one *can* assign a
> nickname for someone else): that even though it's possible, it's not a
> rule violation because "A player SHALL NOT select a confusing
> nickname." implies "for oneself".
By the combined logic of the CFJs, no one can really "assign emself" a
"true" nickname instantly. One can suggest ("select") a nickname, and
if it's unconfusing enough, it stays, otherwise there's a period of
confusion which is eventually sorted out. When I picked Cardboard
Duck whatever, it didn't stick (or was abbreviated) and I would argue
it never was my Agora nickname.
By this logic, also, it's possible to "select" a confusing nickname
and break the law, and still not have the nickname stick or be recorded
or have the change be successful.
-G.
