On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 at 23:45, Jason Cobb wrote:
> Rule 1586 ("Definition and Continuity of Entities") 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.
>
>
> It seems that the intent of this is to nuke entities when their backing
> rule changes to no longer define it.
>
> I think there might be two issues with these clauses:
>
> - It doesn't trigger if the defining entity ceases to exist, unless that
> counts as "amending" the defining entity, which I think would be an odd
> reading.
>
> - If the defining entity is a Rule, it doesn't trigger if that Rule is
> repealed because, even if it no longer has force, the Rule's text can
> continue to define (in a natural language sense) the entity.
>
>
> Am I correct in my reading and, if so, should this be fixed?
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
There was some discussion related to this in May in relation to the
side-game suspension act.
E.g. G.'s comment in
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2019-May/053887.html
:
> 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.
Also note that when a rule is repealed, it ceases to be a rule (R105).
--
- Falsifian
