That prohibition is designed to prevent the recurring scam of players setting or changing their names to ruleset phrases as a way of hijacking their meanings. In that spirit, spaces are probably the most important bit; if we bring them back in then name-based injection becomes much more practical again.

Good point, I should have checked the Annotated Ruleset, which does indeed explain why we wrote it like that.

Core scams, eh.

Withdrawn.

I wasn’t aware there was an annotated ruleset, huh

It’s by no means exhaustive or 100% up to date, but it seemed like a useful to way answer the questions of why the rules are they way there are. (A link here for those who haven’t seen it.)

@Kevan I wasn’t saying I was against it per se.

I’m thinking of something like
- you can take namesLikeThese or CamelCase or Chiiika Wins this Dynasty
- But if the name was changed or modified without a proposal remove all the space from it

, and consider to be as if the name has no space

* Admins can, and have in the past, set up fake accounts for their scams, so removing the restrictions from new accounts just means it becomes an admin advantage

* Any solution that’s more complicated than the at-least-easily-expressed “no spaces” seems like a lateral move at best

“change or modified without a proposal” including setting the value for the player object from none to the name they specified, so the new name is also counted as w/o space