On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 3:19 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 1. A person can declare emself a person, but can't declare emself a player
>> other than through the registration process.
>
> I'm not sure I agree.
>
> I call for judgement on the following issue:
> {
> If I were to post to a public forum any of the following statements, I
> would be a player:
>
> 1. I am a player.
> 2. I declare myself to be a player.
> }
>
> Assertion of Jurisdiction:
> I am a first-class person, but not a player. The Rule 591
> authorizes inquiry cases to be initiated by any first-class person.
> Therefore I can do this.
>
> Argument:
>
> The rules concerning registration and playerhood are set up so that
> there is no practical difference between being registered and being a
> player. Practice, although not explicit in the rules, uses
> "registered person" and "player" synonymously.
>
> The rules allow a person to register themselves, and also explicitly
> allows other similar statements (such as a wish to be registered, a
> desire to be registered, etc). Game custom is to make it easy for new
> players to join without being chased away by pedantic players saying
> "You didn't do that right. Try again".
>
> As such, the synonymity of the states of playerhood and registration,
> as well as the laxity in the registration rules and the game custom
> should allow statements such a those in question in this CFJ to be
> sufficient to allow an unregistered person to register, and thus
> become a player. As an example, recently a person attempted to
> register as a player with the statement "I join Agora". No hew and
> cry resulted from that attempt, and all are acting as if it were
> successful.
>
> In short, a person can declare emself to be a player.
>
Goethe chose an incredibly bad example given how lax the registration
process is, but even by posting vague statements to the PF declaring
oneself a player one follows the registration process.
