On Mon, 2024-05-27 at 12:53 -0500, nix via agora-business wrote: > On 5/27/24 10:52, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote: > > I CFJ: "Agora is a game of nomic", barring 4st > > I number this CFJ 4084. I assign it to myself. I judge it IRRELEVANT. > > > I CFJ: "The CFJ above bars the player currently named 'apathy'" > > I number this CFJ 4085. I assign it to ais523.
I judge CFJ 4085 DISMISS, because it assumes something that isn't true (that there is a player currently named "apathy"). (The attempt to bar a player from CFJ 4084 was successful, though – it is clear which player was being referred to.) Names of players are not something that Agora currently regulates (they have been regulated under some past rulesets, but are not at present). As such, a person's name, for the purposes of Agora, is generally considered to be whatever other players choose to refer to em as. (See also CFJ 2840.) Generally speaking, when a player chooses a name for emself, other players choose to also use that name, thus making the change of name effective. (For example, if a new player joins and says "hi, I'd like to play Agora and would like to be known as Tim", other players will then start calling em Tim and a name will be established). However, if a player chooses a name that's sufficiently useless, difficult or confusing, it will not be effective at naming em and then players will tend to adopt some other unambiguous way of referring to em – and that, in effect, is eir name. Since the player in question reregistered, a number of other players are showing some resistance to the use of the word "apathy" to name that player. Although e does not show up in many reports (having recently registered), e was, for example, listed as "4st" in the history section of the Stonemason's report; and Murphy has consistently referred to em as "4st" across multiple messages (including the ADoP's report). Most notably, the Registrar juan listed em as "4st" when reporting on the status of eir Citizenship switch (although the report also acknowledged "apathy" as a name – note that the report is specified to contain "information sufficient to identify" a player, rather than specifically that player's name). The player emself uses both "apathy" and "4st" in eir signature. In addition, the word "apathy" has been used to refer to entities other than the player, e.g. Janet's vote on the decision to adopt proposal 9113 used the word "Apathy" to refer to rule 2465 – this implies that it is not very effective at naming the question. As such, I can only conclude that the player in question is *not* currently named "apathy", but rather some mix of "apathy" and "4st" – I think that if I needed to refer to em unambiguously, I would probably say "apathy/4st". "Apathy" on its own is ambiguous between the player, rule 2465, and the process defined in rule 2465 (but the ambiguity is normally resolved by context, except where players are intentionally trying to design statements to work in multiple contexts). As a side note, declaring apathy-the-player is not sufficient for a win; rules 1586, 217 and 2140 all specify, one way or another, that rule 2465 should not be interpreted in this way. -- ais523
