On Thu, 3 Feb 2011, Ed Murphy wrote: > Wooble wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 1:49 AM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote: > >> Gratuitous: Rule 2226 defines judicial rank as a player switch. Rule > >> 2162 says "No other entity possesses an instance of that switch". If > >> you deregistered, then you became an "other entity" and thus ceased to > >> possess an instance of the judicial-rank switch. FALSE. > > > > Yet you contniue to pretend that agora-business and agora-official > > possessed instances of a switch switched to "Public" before such a > > thing even became possible. > > *looks up* > > February 2003: Proposal 4456 defines switches and assigns fora a > Publicity switch, including this clause: > > Whenever a switch is created, or becomes associated with a class > of entities, then each entity in the class that had previously > been in a state that is now a state of the switch shall continue > to be in that state; all other entities in the class shall be in > the default state of the switch. > > August 2006: Proposal 4866 repeals switches and amends Publicity to > just be an attribute defined by the Fora rule. > > August 2007: Proposal 5111 defines switches and switchifies Publicity > again, with continuity implicitly covered by Rule 1586 (Definition and > Continuity of Entities), which no one appeared to question at the time.
Yes, as I pointed out in recent CFJ, this lack-of-questioning at the time made this eminently reasonable interpretation of R1586 pass into "game custom" and "good of the game" where the rules were explicitly silent. -G.
