On Apr 16, 2017, at 5:04 PM, Quazie <quazieno...@gmail.com> wrote: > Assuming I am not a player: > I CFJ on the statement "Quazie is a player.”
What if we’ve all been coming at this from the wrong direction? I think there’s broad consensus that the truthiness of that CFJ is a matter in need of resolution, and we’ve had a few threads discussing problems with various non-registering ways to resolve the problem while making Quazie a player. However, we don’t need to make Quazie a player to resolve the ambiguity, do we? We just need one of the two states to be the only remaining possible state. For example, would ratifying the statement “Quazie is not a player” resolve the ambiguity? The rule on registration might bar ratification from making someone a player, but no rule appears to bar making someone not a player by ratification. This is mostly academic. I’m way more interested in the approach we’re using, and ratifying our way out of it feels like giving up. However, I am interested in reasons ratification wouldn’t work this way… -o
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
