I don't think Less Critical Patching is a good idea. Specifically,
we had a plague of switch indeterminacy/uncertainty some (long) time
ago, which is exactly why the "would otherwise fail... it comes to
have its default value" clause exists in the first place (especially
whenever Paradox wins exist).
On Sun, 8 Jul 2018, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> I like these in general, but I think that Less Critical Patching
> should address what occurs if there is no default value. Currently, I
> don't think that switches can lack a value.
> On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 7:15 PM Aris Merchant
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Title: Office Patch
> > Adoption index: 3.0
> > Author: Aris
> > Co-authors: G., P.S.S
> >
> >
> > Amend Rule 1006, "Offices", by changing the first sentence to read:
> > Officeholder is an office switch tracked by the ADoP, with possible values
> > of any person or "vacant" (default).
> >
> > Change the gamestate to whatever it would be if officeholder had been a
> > switch
> > for as long as it has been described as such by the rules, with "vacant" as
> > its default value.
> >
> > Make omd the Distributor.
> >
> >
> > Title: Less Critical Patching
> > Adoption index: 3.0
> > Author: Aris
> > Co-authors:
> >
> > Amend Rule 2162, "Switches", by {
> >
> > * Changing item 2 of the numbered list to read
> > "One or more possible values for instances of that switch,
> > exactly one of which can be designated as the default.
> > No values other than those listed are possible for
> > instances of that switch. One of the values SHOULD
> > always be designated as the default."
> >
> > * Changing text "otherwise it takes on its default value" to read
> > "otherwise it takes on its default value, if any".
> >
> > }
> >
> > Increase the power of Rule 2162 to 3.0.
>
