> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 7:26 PM, Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote: > > Interesting. Rule 869 says that “A registered person is a player” and > > secures registration (with power=3). Rule 1551 (Ratification) has power 3.1, > > so it’s actually possible that ratification could register someone. I don’t > > think that’s desireable; if nothing else, someone made a player by > > ratification hasn’t agreed to follow the rules, and there are some troubling > > questions of consent.
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: > CFJ 1836 states that a self ratifying report does not ratify > information it incidentally contains, particularly the list of > players. The logic behind that is rather interesting, but anyways, it > applies in this case. CFJ 3455 comes to the same conclusion, a bit more directly and with recent rules: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/3455. To summarize, R1551 specifically states that it can't ratify a direct contradiction with the rules into the gamestate, and ratifying a player into the gamestate who has not explicitly consented to being a player is a contradiction, so the ratification attempt fails. This leaves open the question of what happens if a person does consent without registering (might be hard to do, as a statement of consent is generally taken to be a registration attempt).
