On 01/28/2012 04:56 PM, Tanner Swett wrote: > Suppose that we say that the alleged CFJ 3134 was not successfully > called. The precedent that this sets is that, in general, it is not > possible to prosecute John Does. This really isn't that bad, though, > for two reasons. One, it is impossible to take actions by announcement > using an "unknown" pseudonym (except, perhaps, using the untested > method of saying "every player hereby . . ."), meaning that most SHALL > NOTs in the ruleset are impossible to violate.
The rules sometimes contain prohibitions against revealing certain information. If a player were to violate such a rule pseudonymously... then I guess we'd still have to figure out who the leak was in order to punish em usefully, and then we could just prosecute em under eir usual name.
