On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Michael Norrish <michael.norr...@nicta.com.au> wrote: > I think I remember something similar. I certainly wrote a judgement that > defeated such an attempt. I used the "Alice Through the Looking Glass" > argument that being called something, and having something as a name are not > necessarily the same thing. The language in the ruleset may not allow that > argument any more of course.
I should look this up, but note that we have in the past accepted dictatorship rules of the form "[player name] CAN do whatever by announcement" without any special explicitness, and currently have a (non-scam) rule that mentions Taral in the same way. Where is the dividing line between those and the Robot rule-to-be?
