Round 9/History: Difference between revisions

(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)

Line 632:

</blockquote>

Immediately after this, idle argued (and requested a ruling) that impersonation is subjective, to be determined by the person being impersonated<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 15]]</ref>. Cat ruled that this was untrue, providing the counterexample that naming a duck "Random Internet Cat" is impersonation no matter how Cat ~~himself~~ felt about it. idle asked whether impersonation in the context of these rules is the same thing as string equivalence. Cat ruled in the negative, citing that "KIink" (spelled with a capital {{Mono|i}} in place of a lowercase {{Mono|L}}) still impersonates Klink<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 16]]</ref>.

Immediately after this, idle argued (and requested a ruling) that impersonation is subjective, to be determined by the person being impersonated<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 15]]</ref>. Cat ruled that this was untrue, providing the counterexample that naming a duck "Random Internet Cat" is impersonation no matter how Cat herself felt about it. idle asked whether impersonation in the context of these rules is the same thing as string equivalence. Cat ruled in the negative, citing that "KIink" (spelled with a capital {{Mono|i}} in place of a lowercase {{Mono|L}}) still impersonates Klink<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 16]]</ref>.

Cat then officially ruled that idle's mass naming did not "specify" a set of names as required by the Ducks rule<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 14]]</ref>. Specification requires that the set be able to be determined by one person. The duck naming criteria involve subjectivity, as demonstrated by her previous rulings. Thus the set of names idle attempted to assign to their ducks cannot be deterministically evaluated by any given person.

@@ Line 632: / Line 632: @@
 </blockquote>
-Immediately after this, idle argued (and requested a ruling) that impersonation is subjective, to be determined by the person being impersonated<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 15]]</ref>. Cat ruled that this was untrue, providing the counterexample that naming a duck "Random Internet Cat" is impersonation no matter how Cat himself felt about it. idle asked whether impersonation in the context of these rules is the same thing as string equivalence. Cat ruled in the negative, citing that "KIink" (spelled with a capital {{Mono|i}} in place of a lowercase {{Mono|L}}) still impersonates Klink<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 16]]</ref>.
+Immediately after this, idle argued (and requested a ruling) that impersonation is subjective, to be determined by the person being impersonated<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 15]]</ref>. Cat ruled that this was untrue, providing the counterexample that naming a duck "Random Internet Cat" is impersonation no matter how Cat herself felt about it. idle asked whether impersonation in the context of these rules is the same thing as string equivalence. Cat ruled in the negative, citing that "KIink" (spelled with a capital {{Mono|i}} in place of a lowercase {{Mono|L}}) still impersonates Klink<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 16]]</ref>.
 Cat then officially ruled that idle's mass naming did not "specify" a set of names as required by the Ducks rule<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 14]]</ref>. Specification requires that the set be able to be determined by one person. The duck naming criteria involve subjectivity, as demonstrated by her previous rulings. Thus the set of names idle attempted to assign to their ducks cannot be deterministically evaluated by any given person.