On Tue, 16 Sep 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Clearly identifying someone as an unidentified player is a contradiction. > > Identification is not a toggle switch with values "unambiguously > identified" and "completely unidentified". The message identifies its > sender as a player, which is ambiguous but still communicates much > more than if it contained no statement of identification at all.
Just like writing a message in Turkish and identifying the language as Turkish clearly communicates that there is a message but for the purposes of the rules doesn't communicate the content. You know the CFJ of which I speak. Indentification is not a toggle, but where the attempt interacts with the rules, ultimately a "yes communicated" or "no not communicated" switch/ decision/judgement must be made. For the purposes of the rules, this is clearly on the side of "not identified". -Goethe
