Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion [2023-05-25 07:11]: > 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.
The fact that there is such a CFJ changes things, indeed. But just because it defines what a nickname is. As for the platonism: I'm not really convinced that report is platonically wrong! Honestly, I'm not even sure what that term means. But anyway, the fact is that names are, in general, not unique. Reference, as a semantical-philosophical concept, depends on context. What defines what is the authority when it comes to resolving the name “blob”? I'm really asking. -- juan Registrar
