On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 2:01 PM, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
Because I'm quite specifically trying to exploit this clause:
If the documents defining an entity are amended such that they
still define that entity but with different properties, then
that entity and its properties continue to exist to whatever
extent is possible under the new definitions.
Those amendments clearly satisfied the antecedent, but I don't think
my proposed amendment does, because the document being amended did not
previously define the entity.
