On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote: >> >>"To flip an instance of a switch" is to make it come to have a given value. >> >> makes me believe that a switch can be flipped to any of the switch's >> legal values. As long as it comes to have the given value, it's a >> legal change. > > There's a causality debate to be had here. If you set a switch from > X to X, you weren't the one who "made it come" to have that value, it's > whomever did it before you. I think, just from basic definitions, it > can be argued either way. But your interpretation makes more sense in > the context of Officers' duties. If an Officer is required to set a > switch to X, and it's already X, we want em to be able to say "I flip > the switch to X" and have it count as a duty fulfilled.
I agree that your counter-interpretation might be slightly semantically superior, but my interpretation might be slightly more pragmatic [1]. If it is necessary (or if there is a decision to award omd a card), a CFJ could certainly help iron this question out. Or it could just be preempted by letting this time go and changing the rules to add the word "different" and eliminating ambiguity. [1] Of course, I think my interpretation is right, but that's because I'm an egotist and I want my cool and good interpretation to be the best one. -grok
