To me this sounds like lack of explicit consent to be a player, so by CFJ 3455 the ratification failed.
On Fri, 20 Oct 2017, Alex Smith 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.
