Soliciting comments/things I may have forgotten here: Examining Pavitra's message in the context of the panel's concerns, I must examine what effect the modifier 'as a "watcher"' as upon Pavitra's alleged message of registration. There are several plausible interpretations: (1) Pavitra intends to be unofficial recognized as a Watcher in the next unofficial Registrar's report; (2) Pavitra intends to be known as watcher; (3) Pavitra is merely acknowledging that e is currently a watcher of the game and that eir interest is registering is dervied from this status;
Because of Pavitra's admission that e might become registered by the message -- and a definite attempt to participate (by setting eir posture to sitting) in that case -- interpretation (1) is not as believable as it would ordinarily be. Because watcher is quoted (2) is an especially plausible interpretation in this case. The use of 'a' obviously makes it less plausible but can be excused as an inconsequential typo. Perhaps the best argument against this interpretation is that E signed eir message Pavitra and not watcher; however, there is no restriction against players holding two or more nicknames. Interpretation (3) would be more plausible if 'as a "watcher"' were somewhat parenthetical and didn't seem to then be a misplaced modifier under this interpretation. Because interpretation (2) and (3) are plausible (even if less likely intended than interpretation (1)), we must interpret the message as causing Pavitra to become a player per R754, which requires the rules' definitions to prevail by default. (The relevant definition in this case being contained in R869.) This is well within the spirit of the Agoran game: traditionally, the rules prevail over game custom. Had the game custom of recognizing Watchers not existed, Pavitra would trivially have become a player as a result of this message (some form of interpretation (1) might still exist, but it would be highly unlikely); so making the registration unsuccessful would effectively be giving game custom precedence over an explicit definition of the rules. -- As for H. Appeleate Panelist Goethe's arguments, I do not believe that R101's requirement of consent applies to becoming bound by the rules. The rules are not a binding contract (they are not structured as one, they are not adjucated as one), and as I discussed in my original arguments R2171's attempts to make them into a binding contract for R101 purposes are ineffective due to precedence. Even if they do trigger consent conditions under R101, this does not apply in this case because Pavitra was already materially subject through the rules through the binding public rule-governed contract the Perl Nomic Parntership and because Pavitra provided some consent in this message. The only issue is whether eir consent was willful. Eir later statements about eir intent in registering explicit state that e believed eir message would cause em to become a player. Given this belief, and eir prior knowledge of the rules from having previous been a player, this is no reason to believe that eir consent was not explicit and willful. Regarding the game custom that it be easy for players to register H. Goethe mentions, I believe this is enshrined in the very explicit defintion of "register" of R869 (as well as the many accepted forms of announcement of registration in R869). That Pavitra in fact registers in this case is a side effect of how this game custom has become enshrined in the rules. -- H. Levi asks me to consider whether the message did not register a player called 'watcher' but did register a player. I do believe that Pavitra intended to be known as Pavitra, but because interpratation (2) was plausible and there was no other referrent for 'watcher' as in this CFJ's statement, 'watcher' was an unambiguous way of referring to em. As long as they are unambiguous, nicknames chosen for players need not be chosen by or even consented to by the players themselves. I proto-judge CFJ 1882 TRUE. -woggle
