On 5/30/22 21:02, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: > So it's more unclear, and potentially ambiguous, which would just make > deactivation fail. Also, that CFJ didn't address the contradiction of being > able to activate the device while it's already on.
The only communication standard that must be met is for performing a by announcement action. If the rules make it ambiguous what the effects of the action are, that's a problem after the action is performed, but it doesn't prevent the performance. > >> (In terms of your earlier discussion about what "the device changes" >> does – remember that the device is a switch with two positions, so the >> logical thing to change is the switch's position.) >> > I feel like the written definition for a device change is what mucks this > up. If a device change could be "any of the above", then why should it just > be turning the device from off to on specifically when it's after an > assignment? "The devices changes from its current value to its opposite > value" is just one possible interpretation, as is "the device changes from > its current type to a different type (such as welcome device)", "the device > changes from its current title to a different title", "the device changes > from its current time window to a different time window", etc. It needs to > be more specified for anything to actually happen. Rules text doesn't need to be specific about what changes, unless a higher powered rule says otherwise. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
