On 9/25/19 8:48 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
The reason I added that bit is because of 2009's chamber system where
Chamber was a proposal switch. Back then, though, its possible values
were different -- red, green, and purple, if I remember correctly. My
fear is that all the proposals from that time would be affected and have
their chamber set to "unset" due to it being the default value under
this proposal. I don't think it will change the rest of the gamestate,
but I would rather they stay that way for historical correctness. If I'm
wrong, I'll change it to "every proposal".
I believe you're wrong. Specifically, under Rule 1586, "Definition and
Continuity of Entities", those switches stopped existing when the
rules stopped defining them. Even if we reenacted the old rules, the
value of the switch would still go to default. So you're not
overwriting their switch values because they don't currently*have*
switch values.
I've been wondering about this for a little while. R1586 reads, in part:
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.
If the entity that defines another entity is amended such that it
defines the second entity both before and after the amendment, but
with different attributes, then the second entity and its
attributes continue to exist to whatever extent is possible under
the new definitions.
[Note that the below is speculative and not something that I'm willing
to die for]
Repealing a rule is distinct from amending a Rule by R105, and since
R105 has higher Power than R1586, R1586 gets R105's definition of "amend".
Even so, one could argue that repealing a Rule is "amending" it, since
it causes the Rule to cease to be a Rule. However, I don't think that
would remove the text from the former rule; R105 even implies that that
text is still part of the gamestate (since it's used in reenactment).
And, I would argue that the text of a Rule can still "define" something
even if that former-Rule doesn't have effect or Power. If a Rule were to
say "A Market is an entity" (arbitrary example), and that Rule were to
be repealed, the former-Rule's text can still "define" what a "Market"
is, since defining words is something that text can do.
In conclusion, I'm not sure that R1586 actually works for Rules in
general (assets and switches have some special wording, so they might be
different...).
--
Jason Cobb
