On 12/10/24 3:32 PM, Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion wrote:
There is an argument to be made that absolutely all relevant historical information should be repeatedly posted to list so that it's not necessary to consult archives, and the game could theoretically be played with an ephemeral public forum. This is arguably why the Rulekeepor's, Registrar's and Herald's monthly reports exist in the first place. But in practice this is not how the game is played; we regularly consult the archives, and judicial precedent is codified as one of the R217 four factors.
If the goal is to be able to theoretically play the game on an ephemeral forum, keeping a list of all previous aliases of players does not factor into this goal. As a matter of Agoran culture, when a player's alias is changed, all officers tend to switch their reports to the new identity by the time they send their next report. Even history sections are generally amended as if that player had been using their new alias throughout the history of the report.
Now, this is only one small point in the grand scheme of things. However, I submit that this line of justification should not be a deciding factor if it comes down to it (along with qenya's other reasons for dismissing it).
As for my personal opinion, as an occasional history-diver I think it would be neat to have access to a list of peoples' aliases published semi-frequently; however I do understand the problems with doing so. I would prefer that people who would be more heavily impacted by this policy be the deciding votes.
As a disclaimer, I have no personal stake in the redacting of prior aliases. The closest I have come to an identity change of the nature that this question concerns is switching from a somewhat embarrassing alias (which is a corruption of my real name) to my real name on Github and elsewhere. It is this triangle's opinion that that does not even come close to counting here.
-- Trigon Popular Polygon
