Tanner L. Swett wrote: > I support. As far as I can tell, this judge's logic is essentially > "rule 2162 does not define the phrase 'single switch'; therefore, the > phrase 'single switch' is meaningless". Naturally, the lack of a > definition in the rules for a term does not cause it to be > meaningless; in the absence of a rule defining a term, we simply use > "game custom, common sense, past judgements, and consideration of the > best interests of the game." Common sense and the game's best > interests say that "single switch" means "type of switch with one > instance".
Gratuitous: Rule 2162 explicitly requires a rule defining a type of switch to specify at least one type of entity associated with it, or it doesn't count as a type of switch. It also talks about instances of switches, but explicitly associates them with types of switches. Rule 2347 doesn't claim precedence over any of this. Interpreting "single" as a noun doesn't make sense, because Rule 2347 refers to "The" Speed switch. Rule 2347 mentions exactly one other singular entity, the Assessor, so it could be interpreted as implicitly specifying Speed as possessed by the Assessor.
