On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > Thanks. CFJ in question is 1361: > > "It is my view that, for the purposes of R559, a nickname is a name that > a Player chooses for emself, that can be reliably used to pick em out in > the full range of Agoran contexts. On this view, arbitrary designations > by other Players, while they make succeed in referring to another > Player, do not consitute nicknames of those Players."
Oddly enough, this seems to directly contradict the (Zefram-era) existing annotation: [CFJ 1361 (called 7 May 2002): Purporting to assign a new nickname, previously unused to refer to any entity, to another player is successful, but does not displace the target's existing name or nickname.] It also contradicts multiple later CFJs: 1882, 2840, and especially 2487. But my prior assumption in this case was a bit different (and perhaps unreasonable if you're conflating it with whether one *can* assign a nickname for someone else): that even though it's possible, it's not a rule violation because "A player SHALL NOT select a confusing nickname." implies "for oneself".
