A little conservative instinct in me wants to be opposed to this but I think it’s essentially reasonable. Might be worth throwing in a similarly weak prohibition on impersonation.

I think impersonation is a bigger and separate question, given that it’s also possible through other backchannels, as well as the wiki and even to some extent the blog.

Gamestate is defined as ‘any information which the Ruleset regulates the alteration of’. This therefore makes Discord names gamestate. The apparent weakness of the provision is therefore illusionary as, being gamestate, discord names ‘can only be altered in manners specified by the Ruleset’.

CoV   per Josh’s point

If it were just “strongly encouraged” under Fair Play, would that avoid the problem?

Sounds about the same. Adding “but this does not render those names gamestate” would fix it.

If it needs fixing. I’m not sure that mere encouragement to change a piece of information counts as regulating it.

yeah i don’t think this “regulates” discord names :0

If non-binding requests about external actions are considered a form of regulation, this will also need addressing in other places - we have things like “should not trade actions in BlogNomic for favors or compensation outside of BlogNomic” and “are encouraged to commit to upholding [Community Guidelines] to whatever extent is possible” in Core.

The simple meaning of “regulate” is to control by means of rules; the second definition here is ‘to bring order, method, or uniformity to’; the main definition here is ‘to control something, especially by making it work in a particular way’...

I’m sorry, I’m not seeing any way around it: by any reasonable definition of the word ‘regulate’, this does, in that it imposes a control by means or a statute or rule.

If there are other errors of this kind in the ruleset then we should fix them; the existence of other such errors does not imply that we should add to their corpus.

i suppose i just don’t see a “should” as controlling anything? influencing, certainly but… the very fact that it’s a suggestion makes it quite distinct from a command or stipulation (or in other words, a ‘regulation’) to my view.

Yeah, I wouldn’t say it was imposing any control, if it was optional. It’s a “please do not litter” sign that an onlooker can choose to ignore, rather than a “penalty for littering £200” sign that explicitly brings the act of littering into in a wider legal system.

I think you’re fairies-ing a problem away, here, respectfully; but I can’t see that we’re going to agree on this, so I’ll accept my position as articulated and see where it lands.

(NB that we asked for opinions on the Discord about this, and the expressed response from an admitted minority was ‘we hate this, kill it’, so it might also be worth reflecting on why we solicit opinions if we’re not going to factor them in…)

oh, hm. i may have missed that second point beneath the discussion about moderation!

I flagged it on Discord because it’s a rule that applies to Discord names, and which would affect future unidling players more than the current group (whose names are all already fine under this rule). If there’d been some compelling angle I’d missed on the benefit that people draw from having very different names in the two places then I’d have withdrawn it. But your stated case and the two brief “kill it” responses of agreement it got from Bucky and MaidenOfAir haven’t convinced me yet. (It’s not even clear whether Bucky is reacting specifically to the gamestate angle.)

If you’re arguing a plain English case, I think it that needs to be demonstrated with plain English examples, rather than clipped extracts of dictionary definitions. The “bring order, method, or uniformity” link gives the example usage of “regulate one’s habits”, which I wouldn’t say fitted here - the question is whether something “regulates the alteration of” information, not whether it regulates the information.

Every plain English example I try to formulate falls down in the context of the “regulation” here being a request that can be ignored.

I feel like you’re setting up a false test, there; dictionary definitions are perfectly adequate to demonstrate meaning… But sure, I’ll play…

“The therapist taught me tools to help regulate changes in my emotions”

“The workshop provides tools to regulate patterns of social media usage for a healthier digital lifestyle”

“The app offers features to help regulate fluctuations in spending and budgeting”

The etymology of ‘regulate’ is from the Latin ‘regulare’, to control, or to guide. The modern English version maintains those two distinct forks to its meaning - the legislative one (“to regulate” as a synonym for “to legislate”) and the systematic one (“to regulate” as a synonym for “to regularise”). The ruleset doesn’t offer a firm statement in support of the former over the latter; so when I allege fairies, what I’m specifically saying is that the argument being advanced is that the ruleset means the former and not the latter. I see no basis for that.

Thank you for humouring me, that does genuinely draw your point into a focus that was eluding me.

You’re saying that because this proposed rule change would try to make the names across the blog/Discord space more uniform and “regular”, it can be said to be “regulating” those names?

I’d agree with that, but I’m less sure that it follows that it is also “regulating the alteration” of those names, therefore making them gamestate. The alterations required to make the names uniform (or to change an emotion or the fluctuation of a budget) don’t seem in themselves to be a regular pattern - they will vary according to the corrections that are required.

But I’ll withdraw this as the proposal has become the story and it’s asking players to vote on two things at once. I’ll put up a plainer “should Discord names match” with gamestate caveats at some point.