The other thing to note is that he was previously a player and continued to take player-like actions. Additionally, he stated that he had observed his inclusion in the Registrar's report and had knowingly not CoEed.
On 10/25/2017 10:47 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > 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. > > >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
