On 5/27/24 1:59 PM, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
On 5/27/24 12:53, nix via agora-business wrote:
I CFJ: "The CFJ above bars the player currently named 'apathy'"
I number this CFJ 4085. I assign it to ais523.
Gratuitous: This is trivially TRUE. Names have no legal meaning in
Agora, and plenty of case-law covers synonymous names. CFJ 4033, 3225
(implicitly), 3467. Nothing stops anyone from referring to anybody by
any name or referent, as long as it's clear. Only reason I didn't assign
to myself was to follow the arbitor's requirement to give "reasonably
equal opportunities to judge".
Some other potential precedents to consider...
3497, though it considered a hypothetical
3355, 3190, and 3168, on the grounds that no actual ambiguity had occurred in
any of those cases
At least some of those were judged when the rules more thoroughly regulated
nicknames, so presumably 4085 would apply an even less strict standard.
1361 possibly comes down on the other side (see the end of Judge Steve's arguments). However, can anyone
provide an actual example where there's a substantive ambiguity between "apathy (the player)" and
"apathy (the win mechanism)"? If I say something like "I declare apathy the winner of the
election for Grand Panjandrum" that falls well short of rule 1728's requirements (clear, explicit,
without obfuscation...) for tabling the action of winning by apathy.
Also, wow, from searching the judicial archives, I'll just say there's a long
track record of Agorans doing things like this. There's a nonzero chance I end
up writing a thesis cataloging some of the more amusing ones.
--
Mischief
