status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4033
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).
=============================== CFJ 4033 ===============================
There is a currently registered player named “blob”.
==========================================================================
Caller: Juan
Judge: nix
Judgement: IRRELEVANT
==========================================================================
History:
Called by Juan: 25 May 2023 20:42:33
Assigned to nix: 25 May 2023 23:38:04
Judged IRRELEVANT by nix: 30 May 2023 19:44:29
==========================================================================
Caller's Evidence:
This thread (linking to end):
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg55883.html
Caller's Arguments:
Apparently, it is the first time in agoran history that a
player game emself the same name as a previous player *long enough* for
it to become an issue. Now there is controversy: there is long-standing
tradition both in letting people choose eir own names and asking for
people to choose unique names.
Names are not defined by the rules. There is, however, an old CFJ
stablishing that names are identifiers that uniquely specify
players across all contexts in Agora. The question is: is this
enforceable? Besides not defining them, the rules don't even *mention*
names; instead opting to make officers “uniquely identify” players.
So, in my view the crux of the matter for this CFJ is to determine
whether refering to a current player by a name that a previous player
had, in a context where only registered players are mentioned, *is*
actually uniquely identifying the current player.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge nix's Arguments:
I judge this CFJ IRRELEVANT.
The rules do not mention and do not care about person's names. Reports
and actions need to clearly differentiate who they are referring to, but
nothing says that needs to be done by names. It's not regulated, nor is
it tracked. The closest we get to tracking anything like names is the
Registrar's report, which must include "information sufficient to
identify and contact each player." This could be many things, such as
email address, assigned identifiers, registration date, or many other
solutions. Some are clearly more useful than others, but all seem allowable.
It also seems to be that nobody is debating whether this person is
called blob. I could be wrong here, but the debate appears to be about
whether that is ambiguous.
Meaningful questions may arise in specific usages of this name as an
identifier. It may very well be ambiguous with the previous player also
known as blob, especially in instances of reports that mention both
(Herald, Registrar, and Rulekeepor monthlies perhaps) or in actions that
can refer to any persons, not just current players (titles, ribbons).
These deserve their own CFJs when they occur, with arguments about the
specific instance.
There's also a very valid concern about whether this muddies the clarity
of historical documents, or historical research. I think this concern
needs to be balanced with the long-standing tradition that the caller
mentions of allowing players to choose their own name, and of referring
to players primarily by chosen name. This appears to be a conflict
between individual rights Agora gives, and the best interest of Agora
long-term. Both seem to be equally strong claims about the best
interests of Agora to me. Ideally this would be resolved by agreement on
conventions, either informally or legislatively.
In any case, I believe this CFJ is both the wrong question and the wrong
approach to addressing this conflict. I beseech interested parties to
seek common ground and to ask CFJs on specific instances of potential
ambiguity/conflict that more directly interact with the rules. When it
becomes clear how often this is actually an issue (or not) for play, it
may become easier to agree on standards.
==========================================================================
