On Sun, 9 Jul 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Sun, 9 Jul 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > > 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. > > Alternatively, the Office mechanics are all there unchanged and working > from before Officeholder was a switch. > > So if we just completely ignore the first sentence of R1006 as being > a false sentence, does anything actually break? > > Using common definitions and the rest of the rule, the assertion that an > Officer is someone who holds that office (where each Office is specifically > defined elsewhere), and that under some specific situations the office > becomes vacant, still works using common definitions for office > holding and offices being vacant. Nothing in the Elections rule is > specific to changing a switch, it just says the winner is "installed into > office" (and "installed" isn't really switch-like language in the first > place).
Oh, notice that the other change in the above proposal is to actually remove any definition of "Office" from the ruleset. So "Office" is now interpreted as some kind of common definition, when it wasn't before as "a position of authority, trust, or service, typically one of a public nature." So my new question is: Is being a Judge an Office? (and since it isn't explicitly an imposed office, it would be elected...)
