Pavitra wrote: > On Wednesday 05 November 2008 03:29:17 pm comex wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >>> I intend, with 2 support, to initiate a criminal case against >>> ehird the first-class player for violating rule 2170 in the above >>> message by choosing a nickname that had generally been used to >>> refer to another entity (namely a pledge) in the previous 3 >>> months. >> The name "ehird" has never been *generally* used to refer to a >> pledge. > > A player SHALL NOT select a confusing nickname, including but > not limited to a name that has generally been used to refer to > another entity within the past three months. > > I don't feel that calling emself ehird is confusing, though calling > the pledge that might be. Is any "name that has generally been used > to refer to another entity within the past three > months" /necessarily/ considered confusing?
This should arguably be interpreted as considering the three-month period as a whole; during that period, "ehird" was most often used to refer to the player, and only briefly used to refer to the pledge.
