On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > Actually, when this came up, e made a statement that could have been > consent and I believe G. may have mentioned that he thought it could count.
No - not after the fact. The situation that CFJ 3456 allows this to work is is if a person is ratified OUT of the game, no-one knows it and e acts like a player, then we try to fix things by trying to ratify em back in (with eir consent prior to ratification). That's a very strict set of circumstances, for which full knowledge of the situation is shown by the person ahead of time. I would personally not count ais523's after-the-fact "maybe" as consent were I a judge, though I'll say it's a grey area and another judge might find differently.
