On Mon, 20 Dec 2010, omd wrote: > On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote: > > Arguments: > > > > When we implemented switches the second time (Proposal 5111), several > > properties - Activity, Publicity, Posture, Citizenship - were assumed, > > as far as I can recall without argument, keep their prior (non-default > > non-switch) values without explicit boot-up text. If all those had been > > taken to be reset we would be playing a game with neither public fora > > nor Players. TRUE. > > I intend to appeal this with two support. Those amendments were all > to the existing rules defining the switch in question, which easily > fulfills the condition of Rule 1586. The proposed amendment is not > and, in fact, there is no such existing rule.
No, they were amendments that turned non-switch entities into switches. I don't see how that matters if it occurred within the same rule or an add-on one.
