On Wednesday 15 August 2007, Zefram wrote: > Actually it would just make things worse when we discovered after the > fact that e had been deregistered some time ago. If the ruling had gone > that way, we could probably have traced you through the IP address in > Peekee's web server log. This would fail for a variety of reasons. ;)
However, this brings up an interesting issue. In your ruling you state > We would expect the purported author to repudiate > the message, and the true author (if e could be identified) might well > be in breach of rule 2149 due to the false claim regarding authorship. but what if the From header was, say, my real name, or some other identifier that is correct, but that is ambiguous to everyone else? Sending such a message would not be a violation of any current rule, but it would confuse the gamestate at least. > Don't need to do this. The fact that e cannot register emself says > nothing about whether e can be registered by other means. A proposal > that says "Register Peekee." would suffice. Rule 869 specifies that "to register" and "to become a player" are synonymous. Therefore, Peekee CANNOT become a player within 30 days after the dereg message.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
