On Wed, 4 Jun 2008, comex wrote: > There is no precedent in the CFJ archive. The name clause of rule > 1586 has been invoked when I deemed Murphy to be my nickname, but even > then, Judge Zefram abstained from commenting on what would happen if > Murphy was in fact commonly used as a nickname for me, relying instead > on the fact that it wasn't.
One effect that R1586 might have is in reverse lookups. If no two rules-defined entities can have the same name or nickname, then by implication, any rule that refers to something by name refers to the same entity whenever it uses that name (e.g. can't argue that there are two "bank" entities or something defined by two different rules). Also, has anyone ever pointed out that players themselves aren't rules- defined entities? (What it means to be a player is defined, but the entities in questions are persons). Evidence for this in R1586 context: players don't cease to exist if the rules cease to define playerhood. At one point players' nicknames were defined as something the Registrar was required to track, but that would make the nickname the entity and say that no two nicknames could have the same nickname (huh?). That's gone now anyway. I think everything about players' names can come down to precedent about clarity of communication without invoking R1586 at all (e.g. "full range of contexts"). As a result, I don't think we have any precedents about R1586 at all, except the one about proposals which kinda ducked the issue. -Goethe
