On 2/4/23 20:54, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > 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.
I support. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Mad Engineer, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
