Index ← 1697 CFJ 1698 1699 → text
==============================  CFJ 1698  ==============================

    The player with the email address has
    violated Rule 1586 by having the same nickname as me (the caller of
    this CFJ).


Caller:                                 omd

Judge:                                  Zefram
Judgement:                              FALSE



Called by omd:                          09 Jul 2007 18:36:50 GMT
Assigned to Zefram:                     23 Jul 2007 11:39:24 GMT
Judged FALSE by Zefram:                 24 Jul 2007 10:01:44 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

"Person" and "player" are defined in rules 2150 and 869, respectively.


Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:

"Nickname" is not explicitly defined by the rules, so by Rule 754 (d)
ordinary language applies.

According to ordinary language, X is Y's nickname only if Y is called X
in some sort of sufficiently general fashion.  Wherever this line is
drawn, the case at hand (X = "Murphy", Y = the caller of this CFJ)
clearly falls short; Y had never been called X before the message in
which this CFJ was called, and it was arguably unreasonable to expect
that to change.

In fact, it did not change - Y did not even continue to call emself X
after that message - but Rule 217 does not allow the judge to base eir
judgement directly on this, as it took place after the CFJ was called.


Judge Zefram's Arguments:

CFJ 1703 has already established that comex, the caller of this CFJ,
did not change eir nickname (to the extent that a player has exactly one
nickname) to "Murphy".  Furthermore, even if we accept the possibility
of a player having multiple nicknames, "Murphy" is not being used to
refer to comex, and so is de facto not a nickname of comex.  I therefore
find CFJ 1698 FALSE on the grounds that the two persons indicated do
not share a nickname.  This conclusion is reached without needing to
consider whether a violation of rule 1586 would result if two players
did share a nickname in any sense.