Kerim Aydin wrote: > First of all Michael, I think we are agreeing on 95% percent of what > we are saying. There's just a couple of subtleties that are missing > in us agreeing completely, and those are subtleties that aren't > involved in the current, actual situations.
I think you're right. >> When you "deem" your nickname to be PineappleLover, you do so by >> posting some announcement to this effect to the appropriate mailing >> list and the Herald pays the appropriate amount of attention, all >> as required by the rules. > Except there are no rules whatsoever saying that names can be set or > changed by announcement. There are no rules anywhere saying how > names can be changed. But we accept that names can be legally > changed by the announcement from the named party. That's far from > obvious: not many legal systems would allow that! Indeed. This is a nice example of a "deeming". >> Until we get such a rule, or until you pass a proposal covering your >> specific instance of rules-recognised-deeming, or until a Judge >> insists on it and annotates a rule accordingly, then all >> pineapple-deemings are and remain fluff. > I agree. I'm talking about the case that in which a rule is passed > that says: "Any player who is a pineapple may vote twice" but > includes no accompanying clause describing how a player may become a > pineapple. In that case, R101(i) says that a player may become a > pineapple if its what e wilt (because becoming a pineapple isn't > regulated), and the rules must take that into account when counting > votes. Well, in the absence of any pertinent "deemings" (like the one to do with nicknames), I think the minute such a rule passes, we would have regulated being a pineapple, and as a result it wouldn't be up for arbitrary change at all. Given that situation, and in the absence of other rules giving the situation further regulation, we would have to base our decisions on actual fact. > One thing that you might consider: The preamble to R101 is much > stronger that it used to be. My argument is based on that new > preamble is extremely protective of a person's privilege of engaging > in unregulated behavior and having it be legally recognized. I'm > sorry if I didn't make it clear that I wouldn't be making this > argument without the new wording of R101, I'm interested in if you > think this new rule text changes things. You can do anything you like, I agree. Game custom and CFJs extend this right to the changing of official names. On the other hand, you can't turn yourself into a pineapple, simply as a matter of fact. So, if you insist that you are a pineapple, or that you deem yourself a pineapple, what are you claiming will happen? My answer is: the set of "deemings" that govern us are regulated, so you do not have the right to change those (101 (ii)). You have made a post to the PF, but it is not of a form that any rule or extant "deeming" requires us to pay any attention to. So, your post is a nullity in terms of further legal effect. In the real world, you have sent an e-mail, but you remain a person. Any CFJ claiming that Goethe is a pineapple will be answered FALSE. What's your answer? Michael.
