I respond to the below COE by citing the inquiry case initiated in the same message as the CoE was created.
I number the CFJ below 3947 and assign it to myself. On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 1:31 PM grok via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > COE Registrar's report, grok became a player on saturday, february 5 > > CFJ: grok became a player on saturday, february 5 > > CFJ gratuitous arguments: grok published intent to ratify a document > on friday, january 28. grok's argument was that since e was > deregistered due to inactivity, grok never revoked eir consent to be > bound by the rules of agora. the ruling in CFJ 3943 determined that > intending to ratify a document does not require playerhood, since > intents can be withdrawn at any time. > > grok published a message to business saying "i deregister" during that > time. CFJ 3945 found this action was ineffective. > > on february 5, grok resolved the agoran decision to ratify eir > document. although the document was not ratified, grok resolved the > intent. this satisfies CFJ 3943's concern about the ambiguity of > intent, and since eir deregistration attempt was ineffective, grok > should be a player. > > as a preempt--there may be an argument that publishing a message > claiming to deregister revokes one's consent to the rules, even if it > is ineffective. i would argue that since grok resolved eir intent and > called the original CFJ, eir "deregistration" message is more > accurately Faking since e knew it would be ineffective, and e should > receive discipline from the referee after eir playerhood is confirmed. > -- secretsnail
