Re: DIS: ...and so is my wife
G. wrote: The more I think of it, the more surprised I am that I can't remember anyone trying this scam. We've had plenty of attempted hardcodings of players into rules/proposals (e.g. G. can amend this rule) or comex is hereby awarded X) but I can't remember anyone trying to change their name to intercept the rule in progress (or avoid it if it's a proposal-based punishment/reset). I don't think it's the document-language of R1586 that enables/prevents this, because that language doesn't give any weight to whomever first has that name upon rule enaction. (It's slightly ironic, because that's why I used the the nomic nickname Goethe in the first place). Murphy, do you have any memory of such attempts from before my time? Not off the top of my head.
Re: DIS: ...and so is my wife
On 27/08/10 04:35, Kerim Aydin wrote: The more I think of it, the more surprised I am that I can't remember anyone trying this scam. We've had plenty of attempted hardcodings of players into rules/proposals (e.g. G. can amend this rule) or comex is hereby awarded X) but I can't remember anyone trying to change their name to intercept the rule in progress (or avoid it if it's a proposal-based punishment/reset). I think I remember something similar. I certainly wrote a judgement that defeated such an attempt. 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. The language in the ruleset may not allow that argument any more of course. Michael
Re: DIS: ...and so is my wife
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Michael Norrish michael.norr...@nicta.com.au wrote: I think I remember something similar. I certainly wrote a judgement that defeated such an attempt. 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. 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?
Re: DIS: ...and so is my wife
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.
Re: DIS: ...and so is my wife
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 12:07 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: 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. I don't see what that matters from the Rules' perspective. The reference is evaluated at the time the rule is enacted.
