on my phone so can't provide detailed arguments (and sorry for the execrable mess it will undoubtedly produce of the reply chain), but I would argue that the entity defining switches, assets etc. is not any one rule, but rather the Ruleset as a whole → repealing a rule counts as amending the ruleset?
(based mainly on some CFJ a while ago where we removed incense as a currency but missed a reference to it, and D. Margaux managed to grant emself some of it despite the " official " definition being repealed, because the missed reference implicitly defined incense as a currency still) -twg Sent from my mobile -------- Original Message -------- On 26 Sep 2019, 19:29, Jason Cobb wrote: > On 9/26/19 11:32 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> There's a long-standing (and regularly cited) precedent for this in >> CFJ [1500](tel:1500): https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1500 >> Short, simple, says that if the definition is repealed from the current >> ruleset, it reverts to a "common" definition. >> >> R[1586/2](tel:15862) was in effect at the time of that judgement, and was not >> substantially different w.r.t. this situation. >> >> -G. > > I don't contest that if the rest of the rules referred to the > previously-defined entity, since the former definition is no longer in a > Rule, so it can't affect the interpretation of the Rules. > > Here's my thought process: > > 1. Does repealing a Rule count as amending it for the purposes of > R[1586](tel:1586)? > If no, then the entities don't cease to exist or otherwise change > (barring other wording, like for assets). > > 2. If yes, then does repealing a rule cause it to cease to define the > second entity? If no, then the entities don't cease to exist. > > First, I would argue that the answer to 1 is no, since R105 defines > "amend" for Rules and has higher power than R[1586](tel:1586). Second, I > would argue > that the answer to 2 is no, since the former-Rule's text still exists > (it doesn't have effect on anything, but it still exists), and text can > define something just by saying what it is. > > -- > Jason Cobb
