[ANSTHRLD] Conflicting with a non player.

[Jay Rudin]

>You did not address my point.  I wrote about what I've heard from
>clients, not about what is stated in a rarely-read manual.  The
>clients are one party; the handbook is used almost entirely by the
>other party.

Well, of course.  People involved in a specific process ask about that process.  When I call a help desk for installing new software, I don't ask about the legal language; I ask about installing the software.

That rule of the handbook nonetheless forms part of the commitment the CoA has made.

>> The mere fact that people have opinions about it is proof that it's
>> important to them.
>
>Yes, but "them" is how many thems out of the whole population of
>thems?

Totally irrelevant.  Very few people using Excel care about the goal-seeking function in What-If Analysis.  But I still have the legal right to have mine work the way it's supposed to.

>Indeed, I know of no Corpora prohibition against such a diminuation of
>difference: as I recall, it just says that Laurel must establish
>"suitable standards of difference" or some such.  It would answer the
>wish expressed by some in the occasional eruptions of this topic, to
>allow them to register their tattoo despite it conflicting with
>someone else's tattoo from [N] years ago who [did|did not]
>[leave|die|fail to renew ownership|fail to renew SCA membership].
>(Bracketed terms vary between eruptions.)

Exactly.  It would certainly answer the wish to use somebody else's armory instead of devising their own unique arms.

But until the CoA passes such a huge paradigm shift and accompanying rules change, we will keep people from claiming somebody else's identity, even if it's the identity of somebody in our history rather than just our current events.

Robin of Gilwell / Jay Rudin

________________________________________
PeoplePC Online
A better way to Internet
http://www.peoplepc.com