On Saturday 02 February 2008 20:51:24 Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Sat, 2 Feb 2008, Zefram wrote: > > The rules do not explicitly define the meaning of "registered as a > > watcher". I wonder how "I wish to be registered as a carpenter." would > > be interpreted. > > You would clearly become a player with the nick "a carpenter." > > Compare "I wish to register as Goethe." "I wish to register as root." > Anything with that phrasing looks an awful lot lick choosing a nickname.
Thinking over this further, I believe that for consistency's sake I'm going to have to argue that even "I wish to register as a watcher" causes an actual registration. As much as I would like to "I wish to register as a watcher" to have its intended effect, R869 has redefined the term "register" with a definition very much unlike its ordinary language definition and the rules do not recognize the existence of watchers. Thus, a modified protojudgement: 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 (or as 'a "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 leaning) 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 (though this can also be used to support interpretation (1) as a indicating a lack of familiarity with termionlogy). The use of 'a' obviously makes it less plausible but can be excused a simple typo or as an attempt to be known by the literal nickname 'a "watcher"' or 'a watcher'. 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. Both (2) and (3) are, however, made more plausible by the game custom of supplying a nickname when registering. Because interpretation (2) and (3) are sufficiently plausible (and it is not very clear that interpretation (1) was intended) and defined in a rule, I choose to favor the message causing Pavitra to register. This is the only choice consistent with the spirit of R754 and the general principle that the rules remain supreme. Allowing otherwise would be allowing a non-rule-recognized game custom to override what would otherwise be a fairly straightforward interpration given the rules by themselves. (If there were no evidence of a listing-watchers game custom, "I register as a watcher" would almost certainly be considered a player-registration due to R869's definition.) It would be far less surprising to allow "I register as a watcher" to work as its writers would probably intend; however, given the rules' definition of "register" with a rather different meaning than the ordinary-language term, this cannot be supported without generally allowing the plain text of the rules to be subverted by game custom. Zefram has put forward the argument that "register as a watcher" is a different term, and thus not subject the R754's default definition. I believe that "register as a watcher", in the game custom usage, is most plausibly interpreted as an attempt to use the ordinary-language term "register", modified by the adverbial phrase "as a watcher". (The relevant ordinary-language definition is in this case "To enter oneself or have one's name recorded in a list of people (freq. as a legal requirement), as being of a specified category or having a particular eligibility or entitlement." (OED).) This yields exactly the game custom definition of "register as a watcher". This is unlike genuinely multiple word terms such as "run out" in the sense of coming to the end of one's resources. There, the ordinary-language definitions of the parts obviously do not suffice to create the ordinary-language definition of the larger unit. -- 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
