==============================  CFJ 3416  ==============================

    omd's recent Apology has a signature, and thus did not violate rule
    2428.

========================================================================

Called by ais523:                                   17 Jun 2014 17:32:02
Assigned to Tiger:                                  30 Jun 2014 13:16:16
Judged TRUE:                                        04 Jul 2014 02:06:21

========================================================================

<1403040719.3426.4.camel@tundra>
Exhibit by ais523:

I didn't notice any signature when reading the message,
because the last paragraph looks pretty much entirely like the entire
rest of the message, and has no signature separator. It was only
discussing the message on IRC that omd pointed out the standard
signature-y acronym bit at the end of the message.

========================================================================

<CAOXVoMd8GJ-s3ZsKP+LJFrq2oGHp=NDJ0ncF+a3_fJwSNpNRWw@mail.gmail.com>
Exhibit by Tiger:

THE RULE IN QUESTION
Rule 2428/0 (Power=1)
Mandatory Identification
      When publishing a message to the fora, the author must
      explicitly sign eir name at the end of the message.
      Failure of a person to sign eir name on eir published messages
      in an explicit manner is the Class-2 crime of Incognito.
JUDGE'S ARGUMENTS
To me, this quickly became a matter of definitions. The rule requires
the accused to sign eir name in an explicit manner. The accused has
previously claimed (or so I interpret em) that any three-word
appellation with initials OMD qualifies as eir name. See the following
exchange:
On 7 June 2014 07:17, omd <c.ome.xk@gmail.com> signed eir message thus:
> - offense most dire
On 7 June 2014 10:50, Henri Bouchard <henrib736@gmail.com> wrote:
> CoE: Your name is omd.
On 7 June 2014 19:59, omd <c.ome.xk@gmail.com> wrote:
> Denied.  No entity, including Agora, has formally blessed omd as my
> name.  The government of the United States has so blessed Nicholas,
> but Agoran tradition does not delegate the definition of "name" to
> governments.  In lieu of that, I believe my appellations should
> adequately identify me as a player.
>
> - obviously mentally disturbed
So who is right? On the one hand, consider the word "explicit". I had
always thought it to mean only the opposite of "implicit", i.e.
"written out (as opposed to being hinted at or inferring)". Looking it
up, however, in Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, gave:
"Not implied merely, or conveyed by implication; distinctly stated;
plain in language; open to the understanding; clear; not obscure or
ambiguous; express; unequivocal; as, an explicit declaration."
(Wiktionary agreed.)
So, the fact that the caller was confused is an argument against the
signature being explicit, since it was arguably "obscure or ambiguous"
- it could indeed have been the final sentence of the accused's
"apology".
On the other hand, we have the word "name", used in Rule 2428 but, in
the context of naming players, nowhere else in the ruleset. The only
other situation where the issue of player identification is brought up
is in Rule 2139, which requires the Registrar to report, among other
things:
"A list of all players, including information sufficient to identify
and contact each player."
Obviously, if it is clear-cut what a player's name is, that name
should be possible to identify em. However, the opposite is not true:
there might be situations where sufficient information to identify
(and contact) a player is available, but no "name" in the everyday
sense.
Digging into this, I looked up "name" as well. Again to my surprise, I
found support for the accused's position regarding the CoE about
"offense most dire":
"2. A descriptive or qualifying appellation given to a person or
thing, on account of a character or acts."
A "name", according to this, need not be the classical notion of a
static, specific, designated word or phrase.
If "offense most dire" and "OBJURGATE MY DADDOCK" are seen as this
type of name, then the fact that they are written out in full, at the
end of the message, makes them explicit. If one instead held that they
only serve as signatures by referencing or containing the "true name",
omd, then they could well be considered implicit or confusing.
To settle this, I interpret the silence on the issue of player names
on the part of the rest of the ruleset in favour of the more liberal
approach. Furthermore, consider the fact that Agora has at different
points had rules regarding what is and is not a nickname, regulating
how to change them etc., but that it no longer does. To me, that hints
at an intent to deregulate names, to be more liberal. And I believe
that before the time of personal records, bureaucracy and databases,
the practice of inventing and using names and appellations was much
richer than it is today. Having relaxed the rules so that the word
"name" is our only anchor, I see no reason not to tap into that
tradition, for fun and variety.
JUDGMENT:
I judge CFJ 3416 to be TRUE.

========================================================================

<CAOXVoMcObX2kTHKM_NCxwswTUJjR3-w57aEgvuz1NkeUN1bfuw@mail.gmail.com>
Exhibit by Tiger:

In closing, I want to state for the record how my reasoning on this
case interacts with CFJs 3421 and 3422, ("omd is known as [signature
with initials OMD that e did/did not write]"). The arguments for those
cases mentioned the notion of a signature pattern being used instead
of a name. My reasoning here only allows that a series of titles, each
being a new way of naming the same entity, count as being explicit
signatures of names. In particular, I definitely hold that G. signing
eir message "-operationally muddled disputant" does not qualify as a
valid signature for em.
To further elaborate on the difference between a valid naming scheme
and an invalid pattern (seeing as one could interpret the
pattern-theory presented in those arguments as drawing the conclusion
that any pattern can serve as a name), consider the following
hypothetical cases.
A player registered, before the enactment of Rule 2428, giving the
name "Knight of Some Number". Following omd's and Roujo's example, e
starts writing "Knight of 1", "Knight of 2", "Knight of 3", "Knight of
5" and so on up the Fibonacci numbers until e grows tired of it. This,
in my opinion, would be valid.
A player registered, before the enactment of Rule 2428, giving the
name "Fibonacci". Following omd's and Roujo's example, e starts
writing "1", "1", "2", "3", "5" and so on up the Fibonacci numbers
until e grows tired of it. This, in my opinion, would be invalid.
The pattern which is the "name" in the second case is a well-known
pattern. However, each signature can not be said to be a "name" for
the player, even in the loose sense that "OBJURGATE MY DADDOCK" is a
name for (and not an obfuscated way of actually writing) omd.
Obviously, this is only my two cents. I think they're pretty nice as
cents go, but in the metaphor where opinions are cents, everyone's are
worth exactly the same amount.

========================================================================