On Sun, 13 Jul 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Elliott Hird > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I'm not sure I _want_ to be registered if something that goes wrong is >> illegal. > > Oh please. Using a different email address and pretending you have no > idea why anyone would suspect you were you isn't "something that goes > wrong". > > I support the appeal.
Honestly, I think you're focusing on the wrong lie. The lie was not the speech act per se, but the implicit lie of appearing to be someone else in the message. It would be far more interesting to go after that one. On that, I'd like to point out that it's quite reasonable that the Agoran rejection of "avatars" is not clear to a relatively new participant, nor should it be, so there's no reason to believe e didn't honestly think it would work, and so that the act itself wasn't an *intentional* lie. If you really want justice, you'd admit the rules are unclear on avatars, and make a rule to wit "masquerading as more than one individual is against the Rules." -Goethe
