omd wrote: > On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote: >> I would personally judge that this is an obvious attempt to get around >> a higher-leveled definition through the corruption of implicit parentheses >> and that R754 blocks it. Â -G. > > I could pretty easily say "Adoption index is a switch possessed by > Agoran decisions and proposals"; it just gets messy with the possible > values being different between those types of entities. > > In general, there are other situations in the rules where switches > defined by lower-powered rules are implicitly used by higher-powered > ones: for example, judicial rank and Rule 2248. The definition of > adoption index as a switch does not "differ greatly from the > definitions that would be used otherwise", so I think it is > appropriate for it to "provide guidance" as described in R754.
How does explicitly ruling out a fairly common value not count as "differing greatly"?
