rfj ruling 34/0 14 Mar 2001 19:53:33 Jeff Schroeder false Rule 204/1 contains the text: "An Agent may initiate changing eir name to another uniquely identifying name by notifying the Administrator." and Rule 2/0 contains the text: "All game entities must have uniquely identifying names." These rules cover how each game entity has a unique identifying name and how to change that identifier. But the definition of a name in Merriam-Webster is: "1a : a word or phrase that constitutes the distinctive designation of a person or thing b : a word or symbol used in logic to designate an entity" By this definition it is clear that the name is just an identifier for the Player, and not the Player eimself. The question now becomes is the Player Joel the same entity as the former Player Joel Uckelman. And is it known to the game that the Player Joel is the same entity as the former Player Joel Uckelman. This question is more difficult in that we have to decide whether changing the name, according to the game rules, also changed the entity as viewable to the game. This could have severe ramifications if the name change also changed the entity. By the reasoning of the Plantiff: "> Also, it should be noted that the only other such naming instance in >the Rules is in R208/1, which actually does refer to me, as "the Player >whose real name is Joel Uckelman". Clearly this refers, as there exists >a Player, namely Joel, whose real name is Joel Uckelman. For contrast, a >quick check of the Roster will verify that there does not exist a Player >known as Joel Uckelman." The claim follows that because there is no Player named Joel Uckelman, the Player Joel does not have to obey Rule 350/0. This can be extended to reason that Joel Uckelman had Points and Objects and Offices within the game that did not belong to the Player Joel. Rule 208/1 states the Player Joel Uckelman is the initial Administrator and provides means for electing a new Administrator. The Rule also states that the Officer stays in Office until e resigns or is removed from eir Office by other means. There was no election of a new Administrator and Joel is not the initial Administrator, therefore strictly according to the Rules, Joel cannot be the current Administrator. Unless we conclude that the entity that was previously known to the game as Joel Uckelman is the same entity now knows as Joel. It is clear that the other Players in the game know that Joel and Joel Uckelman are the same Player. First there was no motion to add the Player Joel, the change was conducted via Rule 204/1 where Joel Uckelman stated his request to change his name to Joel. Second, the Player Joel took possession of the Points, Objects and Offices that previously Joel Uckelman had obtained. Third, there was no objection by any of the Players in any public forum to the transfer of Points, Objects and Offices to the new Player Joel. By this reasoning it is clear that the Player Joel is the same entity as the previously known Joel Uckelman. Joel has the same Points, Objects and Offices as Joel Uckelman and is bound by the same Rules as Joel Uckelman. In addition, for the ease of convention and for the spirit of the game, this judgement is necessary in order to relieve many problems that could occur if it is determined that changing a name will relieve a Player of any responsibility to a Rule or Motion while maintaining eir Points, Objects and Offices at previous levels. ---- rfj ruling 28/0 14 Mar 2001 23:09:39 Zagarna false Rule 316/0 takes this in account by stating: "Objects may not be created, destroyed, or otherwise altered, transferred, or adulterated except as allowed by the Rules.". As for the spelling it is only a minor technicality better suited by a motion to trivially amend. ---- motion add 29/0 14 Mar 2001 23:09:39 18 Mar 2001 00:13:50 Zagarna Motion to Amend Trivially I submit a motion to amend trivially rule 316/0 by replacing the word "objects" with "Objects" ---- rfj add 40/0 15 Mar 2001 09:52:03 Benjamin If a rule states certain conditions under which points should be transfered, and those conditions are met, then those points should be transfered without any action by the current owner of the points. -----Rule 121/3 : Score is quoted here: Associated with each agent is a scalar quantity known as eir score. An agent's score is a representation of the number of point objects owned by em. The owner of one or more points may transfer any or all points in eir posession to another legal owner by posting to the public forum. If the rules call for the Administrator to credit a player with a certain number of points then e shall order the transfer of those points from the Bank to that player. If the rules call for the Administrator to debit a player a certain number of points then e shall order that player to transfer the required points to the Bank. ----- This rule does not explicitly state that this is the only way to transfer points, and I want a definitive ruling. A TRUE ruling on this would mean that e.g. points exchanged for similarity challenges would be transfered without each player having to post a message indicating so. ---- rfj assign 40/0 15 Mar 2001 09:56:35 Poulenc ---- rfj ruling 38/0 15 Mar 2001 10:39:03 Benjamin true I looked over the rules for about an hour and a half and what it comes down to is this: Taken in context, the motion could be jeff, as a player, submitting a Bank Motion, directing the Bank to make a Motion for Repayment or, it could be Jeff, acting in his capacity as the tax collector, submitting a motion for repayment on behalf of the bank. Because of the ambivalent nature of the motion, I feel we are forced to let the literarity of the motion preside, meaning that Jeff actually submitted a Bank Motion (requiring the Bank to make a Motion for Repayment). It would be more convenient the other way, but I feel this is right. ---- rfj add 41/0 15 Mar 2001 20:18:25 Joerg A debt is payable to the debtor unless e transferred ownership of the debt. According to rules 319/0 (Points Owed) and 358/0 (Motion for Payment) [[these two rules are actually quite similar]], an Agent who owes Points is a debtor and the Agent to which e owes Points is a creditor. Rule 358/0 defines this pending Point transfer to be a debt. Rule 347/0 defines that debts are Objects (proved true by RFJ 28), and that a "debt is always owed by its creator". Obviuosly, the debt is owed by the debtor, so e must be the creator of that debt. As stated by Rule 347/0, Agents may create debts "in their own ownership". Since Objects may not be created except as allowed by the rules (R316/0, Objects), the only possible way for the debtor to be the creator of the debt is to have created it in eir own ownership. Therefore, as long as the debtor does not transfer ownership of the debt, e is the owner of that debt. Rule 347/0 states that "The player to which a debt is payable is the same as the owner of that debt.", i.e. the debtor. Thus the debt is payable to the debtor. [[Ownership of debts should probably be transferred to the creditor automatically, but it is not.]] ---- rfj assign 41/0 16 Mar 2001 09:02:52 Joel ----