On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: > For the purposes of clarity, CFJ “omd "most recently became a player” on the > 3rd of February, 2011.”
I submit the following as a gratuitous argument: I'm fairly certain that both this statement and the statement "omd flipped eir player switch to 'Player' on 19 June 2017" could be true without harming the game state. If both conditions were true then omd's registration date would not change AND switches would (debatably) maintain their pragmatic use by officers as suggested by g. This seems like a Good Solution, although I don't think it's the Best Solution (which is ruling this CFJ FALSE or less optimally DISMISS as indeterminable and then passing legislation that eliminates the ambiguity). First, I recommend a Judgment of FALSE as suggested by the pragmatic value of switches that act this way and the net benefit of an opportunity to change the rules and eliminate the ambiguity. However, if this CFJ is ruled TRUE, I recommend a person submit the CFJ "omd flipped eir player switch to 'Player' on 19 June 2017" and recommend a Judgment of TRUE on that CFJ. I also submit the following comments as gratuitous evidence: I don't see any text in the ruleset that would make me believe a switch cannot be flipped to the value it is currently set to. Especially since "Flip" is a term of art defined textually, not contextually. In casual and contextual cases, "flip" usually indicates multiple exclusive states that can only be modified by changing from one state to another [1]. However, the ruleset definition of "flip" indicates to me that switches can be "flipped" to any legal value, including their current value. The exact language, >>"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. In this case, the player flipping the switch is just making it come to have the given value of "player," and it is coincidental that its current value is also "player." If the textual definition of "flip a switch" made the switch come to have a DIFFERENT value, I would agree. But right now, all I see is that "flipping a switch" just means "setting the value," rather than "changing the value." Adding "different" may be a good decision in the future. There are immediate possible impacts on registration date in this specific scenario. Not a big thing in the current ruleset but it could affect one's ability to give and receive white ribbons. Could also make a player subject to any "new player restrictions" like the ones that used to exist and have been discussed now. Curiously, the ruleset used to have language specifically stating that only non-players could register (R869/9 and R869/17), but that language has been lost over time.[2] [1]: I concede that, in some contexts, "flip" means "to rotate an object along its horizontal axis." [2]: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1648 --- 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
