CFJ 1500 finds that a term of art reverts to its English meaning when
the rule defining the term is repealed:
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1500
<https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1500>
On 6/2/19 9:19 PM, Rebecca wrote:
I wonder if imminence if not defined as a term of art just bears its
ordinary meaning; i.e, nobody can change "
the state or fact of being about to happen" of a proposal if a festival
happens. Presumably that would prohibit non-festive players from removing
proposals somehow?
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 2:52 AM Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
That makes sense. Thank you. Sorry for all the questions, I obviously
haven't been interpreting these rules for as long as you :)
Jason Cobb
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 12:49 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <
ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
On Sun, 2019-06-02 at 12:40 -0400, Jason Cobb wrote:
So I gather that if a Rule refers to an Entity that was previously
defined by the rules, but no longer is, that section of the Rule just
has no effect? Is that correct?
Not necessarily, but you have to look at the wording of the rule. It
says 'Non-Festive players cannot flip the Imminence of any proposal',
which is a statement that's true anyway (because the Imminence doesn't
exist), and thus it's redundant. The gamestate as envisaged by the
other rules doesn't have any contradictions with that one.
If it had said something like "Festive players CAN flip the Imminence
of a proposal by announcement", that would have implied an Imminence
switch into the gamestate (but it probably wouldn't do anything), as
the rule wouldn't make sense in the absence of one.
--
ais523
