The "previously-a-player" isn't enough, OscarMeyr was the subject of CFJ 3456 and was a longtime player. Not sure what "player-like" actions you're referring to, non-players have also CFJ'd and commented while they clearly didn't intend to be players.
The "observed eir own inclusion" without knowingly CoE'ing, to me, is the only potential argument for it working (and it's a reasonable one). The "willful consent" of R869 used to include "explicit" consent - it would likely fail under that standard. Since that standard isn't there any more, it's an interesting and worthwhile CFJ question on what burden of proof is appropriate for determining consent. On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > 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. > > > > > > > > >
