============================== CFJ 3421 ==============================
omd is known as offense most dire.
Called by G.: 30 Jun 2014 15:04:04
Assigned to scshunt: 30 Jun 2014 15:20:12
scshunt recused: 25 Jul 2014
Assigned to Tiger: 25 Jul 2014
Judged DISMISS by Tiger: 27 Jul 2014
Exhibit by G.:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014, Henri Bouchard wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Mon, 30 Jun 2014, Henri Bouchard wrote:
> >>  also known as "obsequious maitre d'", "offense most dire",
> >> "obviously mentally disturbed", "officer most demissive", "only
> >> minor downsizing", "occasionally much discord", "offering
> >> marked displeasure," "originating much doubt", "obloquy meriting
> >> dodo", "organic matter dispenser", "okitewa myou da", "obscenely
> >> mindless duty-bearer", "once mendacious dispatcher", "optatively
> >> momentary dictator", "omitting minor details", "overlord mind
> >> decorticator", "orange monkey dishwasher", "OBJURGATE MY
> >> DADDOCK", "one more dance", "orthogonal matrix determinant",
> >> "operationally meaningful designation", "orator mellitae
> >> dementiae", "organizing mass demonstrations", "obscure
> >> motivational doctrine", "objectively modern democrat", or
> >> "obstinate moderately defensive."
> > CoE: I do not "know" any current player by any of these nicknames.
> > -operationally muddled disputant
> You may not know a player by those nicknames, but I do, so therefore,
> he is known as those names.
CFJ: omd is known as offense most dire. I bar Henri
CFJ: omd is known as oddly marked derriere. I bar Henri
In CFJ , it was found that I could "give" root the
nickname Beverly, and use it in direct context of a message, but that
the use of such temporary nicknames did NOT have an effect on the
nickname tracked by the Registrar. Recently, omd has started signing
messages with three-word phrases with the initials omd. I claim that
this does NOT make em "known by" such names. If it does when omd
uses it (first CFJ), then it should be when others use it (second CFJ).
Exhibit by ais523:
Gratuitous arguments: Many players seem to be interpreting the signature
rule as allowing a particular signature /pattern/. For instance, omd
signs eir messages using words that start with "o", "m", and "d";
Roujo's messages tend to have a signature that involves translations or
synonyms for "red water" ("Roujo" itself can be seen as following this
pattern, phonetically in French).
G. recently signing messages using omd's signature pattern is actually
pretty confusing, given that it's a similar situation as a player using
a nickname belonging to another player. It's unclear whether a signature
pattern can belong to more than one player, but it seems unlikely. (The
situation seems comparable to that of hashtag wars on Twitter, where two
different communities will attempt to use the same, globally-namespaced,
name for different things, confusing searches.)
As per my own judgment in CFJ 3416, a signature pattern was allowed by
the (now repealed) Rule 2428. So the first name, "offense most dire",
is judged to be a valid "name", in the context of rule 2428:
Rule 2428/0 (Power=1)
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.
Does that mean omd is "known by" that name? Arguably. Is e "known by"
the name "oddly marked derriere", which e has not used emself to sign
a message (to my knowledge)? I would say not.
However, I also think this distinction is irrelevant to the game. Even
with Rule 2428 in the ruleset, the two rules which come closest to,
excuse my French, giving a damn, would be it and Rule 2139:
Rule 2139/7 (Power=2)
The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for
keeping track of players.
The Registrar's report includes:
a) A list of all players, including information sufficient to
identify and contact each player.
A case that might appear, would be if the Registrar attempted to list
omd -omly- as "oddly marked derriere", along with an email address.
Would that, then, be "information sufficient to identify em"? Yes,
this is related to whether or not e is "known as" that name. However,
in the end I believe it is a different question, and one that is
dependent on the context in which it is asked, so I will not try to
answer it now.
I judge CFJ 3421 and 3422 by DISMISS, both.
The short exchange in the caller's evidence is a nice illustration of
the situation: some players agree that they "know [omd] as" those
names, while some don't. "known as" by whom? The wording in the CFJ
does not say, and there is no relevant situation in play or wording in
the rules for which it matters at all. As previously stated: DISMISS.