The below CFJ is 4033. I assign it to nix.
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4033
=============================== CFJ 4033 ===============================
There is a currently registered player named “blob”.
==========================================================================
Caller: Juan
Judge: nix
==========================================================================
History:
Called by Juan: 25 May 2023 20:42:33
Assigned to nix: [now]
==========================================================================
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.
==========================================================================
