On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 08:11 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Fri, 18 Sep 2009, ais523 wrote: > > There's no evidence that G. intends to stop playing Agora altogether > > forever; quite the opposite, I would say. > > I have no support for the incorrect and wholly specious current > assumption that a deregistered player/watcher is actually "playing". > By most common definitions for example, someone ineligible to win > a game is certainly not playing the game (and the term has no legal/ > mathematical meaning). > > For my current status there's a perfectly good word to use: > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kibitzer
Agora's a bit of an unusual case, because it's possible to win despite not playing (or indeed, ever having heard of it). I'm not sure if there are actually words in the English language to correctly describe the various statuses with which someone can play (or fail to play) nomics. Anyway, what I was referring to is not "G. is playing", but "it seems to be consensus that exercising your right to stop playing has to be done deliberately, and with an actual intent to stop playing more or less permanently". I'm not sure if that opinion is indeed consensus, although I assumed it was; I'm also not sure if it's correct (or whether I hold it; I haven't thought too much about the matter). There's a precedent about this from one of Warrigal's deregistrations, IIRC. -- ais523
