On 4/9/23 10:08, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote:
> I don't have any damning evidence but I believe that "jimmy" is a currently
> registered player. As such, they couldn't have registered again (R869, only
> the unregistered can register)
>
> I intend to ratify without objection: {The person who recently went by the
> name "jimmy" has not ever registered as the player named "jimmy"}I object. That's unlikely. Most players would know not to do such a thing. Also, I don't think this would work, one doesn't register "as" a specific player. Even if it is the case that this was an existing player, the Cantus Cygneus would still be valid, and the recent registration attempt being unsuccessful wouldn't change that. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
