On Sat, Feb 4, 2023 at 1:07 PM ais523 via agora-official <[email protected]> wrote: > In order to resolve this CFJ, we need to be clear on what a device > actually is. Rule 2654 has somehow managed to avoid defining it. > However, rule 2655 does contain a definition: "The device is a > singleton switch with values off (default) and on."
I intend to motion to reconsider CFJ 4004 with 2 support, as we now have a direct contradiction between two precedents on the nature of devices. In CFJ 3941, Judge G. wrote: > First, to be clear, The Device switch and The Device rule are not > "devices" by virtue of their names alone. This is in direct contradiction to judge ais523's assertion above that "a device" as described in R2654 is the same as "the device switch" described in R2655. In support of CFJ 3941's arguments, Judge ais523's assertion about "a device" = "the device switch" would lead to a rules contradiction when the device was on, namely: > * A Device is an entity with positive Power. That clause does not directly grant "the device switch" positive power (as covered in CFJ 3941), and R2654 (that a device is an entity with positive power) is a lower-numbered rule than R2655 (the device switch). This implies that "a device" as described in R2654 takes precedence over "the device switch" definition and cannot be equated to the device switch. Even if this isn't the chosen final argument, the conflicting precedents should be explicitly harmonized or discussed in the judgement. -G.
