On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 6:43 AM juan via agora-discussion <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > nix via agora-discussion [2023-05-24 18:19]: > > On 5/24/23 18:17, nix via agora-discussion wrote: > > >> If emails are different and there is no note mentioning they > > >> are the same person, they are not. > > > Oh also this is entirely false on the registrar monthly. I am on there > > > in multiple places with entirely different, non-overlapping names and > > > email addresses. > > > > Oh, I see the notes you have at the end. So this is true in that sense. > > I don't like the idea that you have to infer it from complete silence > > tho, seems very confusing. > > I get it. And I agree. I intended to add notes to the monthly. But, > as we discussed on Discord, I think it is a matter of scope: reports > are about certain people, their scope. The Registrar's weekly is about > players, whether the monthly is about people that have been players at > any point in time. In the first scope, there's only one blob at a time, > but in the second there's two! So, in that context, disambiguition is > necessary and adviseable. In the first, it seems rude (to me).
The currently guiding precedent is in CFJ 1361: "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." The key here is "full range of Agoran contexts". If there is ambiguity, the "true" nickname is what disambiguates, so it needs to be unique (annotating it does not make it unique, unless the annotation is always included). Now you might say "for ephemeral reports, I'm using the nickname of the nickname" which people have done plenty (for example shortening Publius Scribonius Scholasticus to PSS because the full name doesn't fit in columns). However when that happens, it is incumbent on the *ephemeral* report's publisher to include the footnote "PSS refers to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus". Anything else is basically inaccurate, in a Platonic sense - and Agora cares about the platonic sense, not "yeah we know from context in the moment". And it matters for self-ratification, because it's the *ephemeral* reports that self-ratify generally, so they are the ones that need to indicate what is self-ratifying clearly, in a way that distinguishes each player in their FULL range of Agoran contexts. I am not *at all* convinced that someone won't accidentally ratify something from now-blob as belonging to Blob or vice versa. -G.
