06-24-2011, 03:20 AM
Alexander Trafford Wrote:He pretty much discussed the significance of the last name in IC terms. I'm saying that because Rose Buuzamaki never RPs, that's not really a problem. He never brought up OOC terms, which is where I used last names to differentiate. Essentially, for what Ashe brought up, confusion in IC roleplaying and events, both of them having Rose is insignificant since one never RPs. And on top of that I added that they can be differentiated OOC-wise by this Rose's last name in her username. So the last-name explanation that was used above is kind of irrelevant to what I said. The second part, which you are apparently discussing now, is the only bit that has bearing on what I said.
Actually, the part that's irrelevant is the fact that Rose is inactive. We currently do not have a rule that says that Rose must keep active in order to keep his character. Telling someone "this other guy is fairly inactive right now, though they might want to roleplay again, but that's their fault, so you can have the name" is not the route we wish to take. We also don't want someone to take time away and then get told "You have to make a new character, because you aren't allowed to use your name anymore" when that's a large part of why we are using a custom system instead of canons ("You have lost your character - yes, I know you built it from the ground up, but we gave it away" being the same as "You can't play that character because of its name/You have to change your character's name, hope that doesn't fuck your story up").
Unless our policy changes, we aren't going to take someone's character away if someone else signs up wanting to use a specific name. There are thousands upon thousands of names someone can use for a character, so there's no point in us ruling as if there's a strict limitation to someone's new character creativity by denying them certain names.
The person who has the name first retains priority over that name until they decide to completely relinquish their character entirely.

