omd wrote: > On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Michael Norrish > <michael.norr...@nicta.com.au> wrote: >> I think I remember something similar. Â I certainly wrote a judgement that >> defeated such an attempt. Â I used the "Alice Through the Looking Glass" >> argument that being called something, and having something as a name are not >> necessarily the same thing. Â The language in the ruleset may not allow that >> argument any more of course. > > I should look this up, but note that we have in the past accepted > dictatorship rules of the form "[player name] CAN do whatever by > announcement" without any special explicitness, and currently have a > (non-scam) rule that mentions Taral in the same way. Where is the > dividing line between those and the Robot rule-to-be?
The intent of those references was always clear and unambiguous, whereas the general public was misled regarding the intent of the Robot reference until coppro attempted to change eir nickname.
