Crunkus wrote:Ugluk wrote:212. does not state any time limits. If we were down to three players, e.g. Crunkus, Pagane, and Ugluk, Crunkus could claim victory by indefinitely denying consent.
I cannot indefinitely deny consent absent life-extension technologies. Can you?
Well, if you did not consent (explicitly or otherwise) and got hit by a bus (sorry.. it comes up a lot at work for some reason .. I think managers fantasize about driving the buses) today, we would still not have your consent, and you would still be an active player. And a winner!
Crunkus, abridged wrote:Ugluk wrote:Could we infer consent of other parties if no remaining active participants weighed in on glittle's activity status?
On what basis would you be inferring anyone's consent?
I would certainly support legislation to clean up the language. But I don't think inferring is meaningful in this context when you have absolutely nothing to base it upon.
The basis of inferring, or assuming if you prefer, consent of the remaining players is that they were not involved in the issue under judgement, provided no opinion on the matter, and were in all other respects divorced from the matter. I presume that the reason for requiring consent is to allow for the immediate contesting of the judgement, before play resumes. So judged, we could conceivably still attain a 3/4ths majority to overrule my decision, in which case the matter is reopened and the judgement role would fall upon my predecessor.
Would anyone like to call for a judgement on the requirements for consent, as per Rule 212?

Niakan is a tease.