On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 7:00 PM, Pavitra <celestialcognit...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
We could sentence them to COMMUNITY SERVICE and say that their punishment is that they must say who they are. Of course, that's still only useful if we're somehow capable of figuring out who's behind pseudonyms, which isn't possible without shenanigans. —Machiavelli
