On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 10:12 AM, 441344 <441...@gmail.com> wrote:
> CFJ 3156:
> Such a ratification could not cause a person to become a player
> without their consent, because doing so would introduce an
> inconsistency between the gamestate and rule 101, but this  would
> generally not be fulfill the conditions ({no such modification[i.e. a
> minimal modification to the gamestate to {make the ratified document
> as true and accurate as possible.} ] is possible, or multiple
> substantially distinct possible modifications would be equally
> appropriate}) for causing the ratification to fail. I therefore judge
> this case FALSE.So, in other words, even though the ratification would not make the person a player, it would not actually fail, because the ratification would still (presumably) do *something*. Right? —Machiavelli
