On Sun, 2017-07-09 at 13:58 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Sun, 9 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote: > > Proto CFJ "After Proposal 5111 got enacted, there have been no > > Officeholders." > > Just as a factual note, Proposal 5111 re-introduced switches, but > didn't put switches in the Officer rule. > > Switches weren't introduced into the Officer rule until Proposal 7586, > 24-Aug-13, and interestingly TOOK OUT the word "default" from the rule > (while keeping the general properties of being some kind of "default" > later in the rule): > > From Proposal 7586: > > Amend Rule 1006 (Offices) by replacing: > > > > An office is a role defined as such by the rules. Each office > > is either vacant (default) or filled (held) by exactly one > > player. An officer is the holder of an office, who may be > > referred to by the name of that office. > > with: > > > > Officeholder is an office switch tracked by the IADoP, with > > possible values of any person or "vacant". An officer is the > > holder of an office, who may be referred to by the name of that > > office. If the holder of an office is ever not a player, it > > becomes vacant.
Oh, that's defining a default (in the ordinary-language sense). I don't think there's a requirement that the rule defining a switch default uses the /word/ "default", is there? If anything, the combination of rules 1006 and 2162 implies that (or even creates a legal fiction that) the rules specify a default for the officeholder switch. If you start from that assumption, it's not hard to figure out what default is being specified. -- ais523
