On 5/20/2019 8:59 AM, James Cook wrote:
[* the rules must define a switch for it to exist, and a rule with no
force or effect includes no force or effect for its definitions - note
R1586 is only power-2 so this "no force or effect" clause would overrule
R1586. So if the switch doesn't exist while the rule is suspended, it is
recreated when the suspension ends, which means in its default state].
What about sectors, politicians, and other entities that aren't
switches or assets? I can't see anything other than the third
paragraph of R1586 implying that a generic entity is destroyed when
its defining rule goes away, and I don't think it applies in this case
since this isn't an amendment.
R217 covers this via the precedent initially set in CFJ 1500, asserts
that words go back to having their common language meaning when not
defined by the rules. Amusingly, CFJ 1500 covered the exact word
"politician" (and if we had to respect that ancient and entirely
different meaning, then the game would be really confused).
Ask yourself: if, while these rules were "deactivated", another rule
came along and defined one of those terms differently, what would
happen? If we respected the old definition as per R1586, then those rules
wouldn't be "without effect". If we respected a new definition, then what
happens when the rules are re-activated?
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1500
