============================== CFJ 1361 ==============================
ALL of the following are True: (1) On or about May 7 2002, Goethe
transferred 0.010 VEs to root. (2) On or about May 7 2002, Goethe
transferred 0.010 VEs to Beverly. (3) The Registrar is required to
track the nickname Beverly for the Player also known as root.
Called by G.: 07 May 2002 15:50:56 GMT
Assigned to Steve: 09 May 2002 01:35:56 GMT
Judged FALSE by Steve: 13 May 2002 02:43:08 GMT
[Oh, for linked CFJs! I humbly request that the judge make an effort
to determine the truth status of each of the substatements in the CFJ.]
In the following actions:
> I give root the nickname Beverly.
> I transfer 0.010 VEs to Beverly.
I believe, as Assessor, that I received a clear communication of a
transfer of Property (R1598), which any reasonable person would interpret
(in the context of a single message) as transferring the VEs from Goethe
to the Player who calls emself root and whom Goethe calls Beverly.
Note that Beverly is not the name, nickname or title for any other
Rules-defined entity (R1586: "No two Rule-defined entities shall
have the same name or nickname.").
Since this is a clear communication, it follows that (in the context of
that transfer) Beverly is an acceptable nickname for the entity who also
bears the nickname root, or at least it is *no less acceptable* than the
nickname root (I suggest that root is a nickname and not a name for a
Note there is nothing in the Rules to explicitly prohibit Goethe from
giving root the nickname Beverly (R101).
Rule 559 reads in part:
The Registrar's Report shall include all of the following
(i) a list of all registered players, with their nicknames,
if any, and preferred email addresses;
Other than the above-quoted section of R1586, this is the only place the
term "nickname" appears in the Rules.
So the assertation is, simply, that, if the above communication of
transfer is clear (which it is), there is no choice but to conclude that
Beverly is a nickname for the same entity for which root is a nickname,
and the Registrar is required to keep a list of all registered players,
with their nicknames if *any*.
Judge Steve's Arguments:
For reference, Goethe's message can be found at <1> (See Evidence).
As requested, I will consider the truth of all three substatements
(1) On or about May 7 2002, Goethe transferred 0.010 VEs to root.
Rule 1598 defines a Notice of Transfer as follows:
(a) A Notice of Transfer is a message which sets forth the
intent to transfer one or more Properties from one entity
(the "transferor") to some other entity (the "transferee").
(b) A valid Notice of Transfer must additionally:
(1) specify one or more Properties all of which are owned by
the transferor; and
(2) be sent by the Executor of the transferor, or by a
Limited Executor of the transferor with the authority to
execute transfers on behalf of that entity with respect
to all of the Properties involved.
Prior CFJs on the interpretation of this Rule have reinforced the moral
that clarity is what matters in a Notice of Transfer. It should be clear
that the transferor actually intends to make a transfer (CFJ 1302), and
it should be clear what Properties are being transfered (CFJ 1337). This
CFJ completes the picture, and I am happy to be able to draw the obvious
conclusion: it should be clear to whom the Property is being transferred.
I accept Goethe's argument that eir method of designating the transferee
is sufficiently clear to satisfy the requirements of R1598. In the
context of Goethe's message, 'Beverly' clearly refers to root. So (1) is
true. (The issue of whether this reference makes 'Beverly' a nickname of
root is taken up below).
(2) On or about May 7 2002, Goethe transferred 0.010 VEs to Beverly.
To evaluate the truth of (2) and (3), we need to think carefully about
contexts of utterance. I have already granted that in the context of
Goethe's message, 'Beverly' clearly refers to root. But now we have to
consider a new and different context, namely, the context of CFJ 1361.
It doesn't automatically follow that what is true in the first context
is true in the second. Nevertheless, given that (2) refers back to the
original context in which Goethe's dubbing of root as 'Beverly' took
place, it's reasonable to describe Goethe's transfer as a transfer to
Beverly. So (2) also comes out true.
(3) The Registrar is required to track the nickname Beverly for the
Player also known as root.
What is a name, or a nickname? It is, among other things, a way of
referring to an entity. But such references are sensitive to context. I
agree that within certain specific and narrow contexts, like that of
specifying a transferee for a Notice of Transfer, Goethe can use
'Beverly' to refer to root.
Does this mean that 'Beverly' is root's nickname in the sense given in
R559? That does not immediately follow. It depends upon the contexts in
which the nicknames referred to in R559 are to be used. R559 requires
the Registrar to track Player's nicknames, if any. What purpose does
this serve? That of allowing Players to refer to each other
unambiguously in the widest possible range of contexts arising in Agora.
It is my Judgement that this gap, between the very narrow context of a
specific Notice of Transfer, and the broadest possible range of contexts
arising within the game, is too wide to cross by an arbitrary act of
designation of one Player by another. In other words, while Goethe may
use 'Beverly' to refer to root in the narrow contexts of (1) and (2)
above, e does not thereby make 'Beverly' root's nickname.
It is my view that, for the purposes of R559, 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. On this view, arbitrary designations
by other Players, while they make succeed in referring to another
Player, do not consitute nicknames of those Players.
Statement (3) is therefore FALSE, and so the Statement as a whole is
Judge Steve's Evidence:
<1> Goethe's message