My objection is that e can deregister. Or I guess you could ratify em away if e wishes. But it seems rather a bad idea to ratify things away in reports as a general matter. Firstly because intentionally inaccurate or negligent reports are not even reports (reaffirmed recently with regard to your own reports). And secondly because it just feels wrong to change the status of players without their being the actors.
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 10:16 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On Fri, 2017-10-20 at 06:33 -0400, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > wrote: >> Yes, he had, but it seems I missed that when preparing a report, >> probably when I was transitioning computers. In my next report, I >> will ratify him away if he doesn't mind. > > I should have CoE'd the first report with the mistake, just before the > week was up, in order to neatly create a time paradox. (That said, > ratification's designed to avoid any sort of time loop; I'd > unambiguously end up a player, because the ratification assumes that > the original report is true, i.e. no valid CoEs against it.) > > There's not really much reason for me to not be a player right now – > the email situation's been fixed – but I'm kind-of enjoying the lack of > pressure/obligations. > > -- > ais523 -- >From V.J. Rada
