IANAAL ("I am not an Agora Lawyer").
I would argue that this is the key section from Rule 1586 ("Definition
and Continuity of Entities"):
If the entity that defines another entity is amended such that it
no longer defines the second entity, then the second entity and
its attributes cease to exist.
The key question is which entity is "the entity that defines another
entity" is "the Rules as a whole (i.e. the Ruleset)" or the individual
rule that defines whatever spaaace entity you're looking at. I would be
tempted to argue that the Ruleset should be interpreted as a whole,
especially given that there are Rules that resolve conflicts between
rules (I'm sure there's precedent here, I just don't know about it).
With the Side-Game Suspension Act, the Ruleset as a whole as amended. If
the Ruleset was the defining entity, then I would argue that, under Rule
1586, all of the spaaace entities ceased to exist, since the Ruleset no
longer defined them (thanks to Rule precedence). However, if each
individual spaaace rule is the defining entity, then that specific
entity was no longer amended. Thus there would be no provisions under
Rule 1586 to destroy those entities. I would thus argue that the
entities would continue to exist, but there would be no provisions in
the Rules to give them force.
As to the question of which is the defining entity, I submit this
passage from the same Rule (Rule 1586):
If multiple rules attempt to define an entity with the same name,
then they refer to the same entity. A rule-defined entity's name
CANNOT be changed to be the same as another rule-defined entity's
name.
This seems to give credence to the interpretation that each individual
rule is the one that defines it.
Jason Cobb
On 6/22/19 10:19 PM, Rebecca wrote:
Does the previous state of spaaaace carry over or does it all reset? Are
you planning to battle your spaaaaces? discuss today
