Re: Re: DIS: We actually have no Officeholders.

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sun, 9 Jul 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Jul 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> > On Sun, 2017-07-09 at 13:58 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > On Sun, 9 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > > > Proto CFJ "After Proposal 5111 got enacted, there have been no 
> > > > Officeholders."
> > > 
> > > Just as a factual note, Proposal 5111 re-introduced switches, but 
> > > didn't put switches in the Officer rule.
> > > 
> > > Switches weren't introduced into the Officer rule until Proposal 7586, 
> > > 24-Aug-13, and interestingly TOOK OUT the word "default" from the rule
> > > (while keeping the general properties of being some kind of "default" 
> > > later in the rule):
> > > 
> > > From Proposal 7586:
> > > > Amend Rule 1006 (Offices) by replacing:
> > > > 
> > > >   An office is a role defined as such by the rules.  Each office
> > > >   is either vacant (default) or filled (held) by exactly one
> > > >   player.  An officer is the holder of an office, who may be
> > > >   referred to by the name of that office.
> > > > with:
> > > > 
> > > >   Officeholder is an office switch tracked by the IADoP, with
> > > >   possible values of any person or "vacant".  An officer is the
> > > >   holder of an office, who may be referred to by the name of that
> > > >   office.  If the holder of an office is ever not a player, it
> > > >   becomes vacant.
> > 
> > Oh, that's defining a default (in the ordinary-language sense). I don't
> > think there's a requirement that the rule defining a switch default
> > uses the /word/ "default", is there?
> > 
> > If anything, the combination of rules 1006 and 2162 implies that (or
> > even creates a legal fiction that) the rules specify a default for the
> > officeholder switch. If you start from that assumption, it's not hard
> > to figure out what default is being specified.
> 
> Alternatively, the Office mechanics are all there unchanged and working 
> from before Officeholder was a switch.
> 
> So if we just completely ignore the first sentence of R1006 as being
> a false sentence, does anything actually break?
> 
> Using common definitions and the rest of the rule, the assertion that an
> Officer is someone who holds that office (where each Office is specifically
> defined elsewhere), and that under some specific situations the office 
> becomes vacant, still works using common definitions for office
> holding and offices being vacant.  Nothing in the Elections rule is
> specific to changing a switch, it just says the winner is "installed into
> office" (and "installed" isn't really switch-like language in the first
> place).

Oh, notice that the other change in the above proposal is to actually 
remove any definition of "Office" from the ruleset.  So "Office" is now
interpreted as some kind of common definition, when it wasn't before as
"a position of authority, trust, or service, typically one of a public 
nature."

So my new question is:  Is being a Judge an Office?

(and since it isn't explicitly an imposed office, it would be elected...)

Re: Re: DIS: We actually have no Officeholders.

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sun, 9 Jul 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 2017-07-09 at 13:58 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Sun, 9 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > > Proto CFJ "After Proposal 5111 got enacted, there have been no 
> > > Officeholders."
> > 
> > Just as a factual note, Proposal 5111 re-introduced switches, but 
> > didn't put switches in the Officer rule.
> > 
> > Switches weren't introduced into the Officer rule until Proposal 7586, 
> > 24-Aug-13, and interestingly TOOK OUT the word "default" from the rule
> > (while keeping the general properties of being some kind of "default" 
> > later in the rule):
> > 
> > From Proposal 7586:
> > > Amend Rule 1006 (Offices) by replacing:
> > > 
> > >   An office is a role defined as such by the rules.  Each office
> > >   is either vacant (default) or filled (held) by exactly one
> > >   player.  An officer is the holder of an office, who may be
> > >   referred to by the name of that office.
> > > with:
> > > 
> > >   Officeholder is an office switch tracked by the IADoP, with
> > >   possible values of any person or "vacant".  An officer is the
> > >   holder of an office, who may be referred to by the name of that
> > >   office.  If the holder of an office is ever not a player, it
> > >   becomes vacant.
> 
> Oh, that's defining a default (in the ordinary-language sense). I don't
> think there's a requirement that the rule defining a switch default
> uses the /word/ "default", is there?
> 
> If anything, the combination of rules 1006 and 2162 implies that (or
> even creates a legal fiction that) the rules specify a default for the
> officeholder switch. If you start from that assumption, it's not hard
> to figure out what default is being specified.

Alternatively, the Office mechanics are all there unchanged and working 
from before Officeholder was a switch.

So if we just completely ignore the first sentence of R1006 as being
a false sentence, does anything actually break?

Using common definitions and the rest of the rule, the assertion that an
Officer is someone who holds that office (where each Office is specifically
defined elsewhere), and that under some specific situations the office 
becomes vacant, still works using common definitions for office
holding and offices being vacant.  Nothing in the Elections rule is
specific to changing a switch, it just says the winner is "installed into
office" (and "installed" isn't really switch-like language in the first
place).

Anything else break under this assumption?

Re: Re: DIS: We actually have no Officeholders.

[Alex Smith]

On Sun, 2017-07-09 at 13:58 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > Proto CFJ "After Proposal 5111 got enacted, there have been no 
> > Officeholders."
> 
> Just as a factual note, Proposal 5111 re-introduced switches, but 
> didn't put switches in the Officer rule.
> 
> Switches weren't introduced into the Officer rule until Proposal 7586, 
> 24-Aug-13, and interestingly TOOK OUT the word "default" from the rule
> (while keeping the general properties of being some kind of "default" 
> later in the rule):
> 
> From Proposal 7586:
> > Amend Rule 1006 (Offices) by replacing:
> > 
> >   An office is a role defined as such by the rules.  Each office
> >   is either vacant (default) or filled (held) by exactly one
> >   player.  An officer is the holder of an office, who may be
> >   referred to by the name of that office.
> > with:
> > 
> >   Officeholder is an office switch tracked by the IADoP, with
> >   possible values of any person or "vacant".  An officer is the
> >   holder of an office, who may be referred to by the name of that
> >   office.  If the holder of an office is ever not a player, it
> >   becomes vacant.

Oh, that's defining a default (in the ordinary-language sense). I don't
think there's a requirement that the rule defining a switch default
uses the /word/ "default", is there?

If anything, the combination of rules 1006 and 2162 implies that (or
even creates a legal fiction that) the rules specify a default for the
officeholder switch. If you start from that assumption, it's not hard
to figure out what default is being specified.

-- 
ais523

Re: Re: DIS: We actually have no Officeholders.

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sun, 9 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Proto CFJ "After Proposal 5111 got enacted, there have been no Officeholders."

Just as a factual note, Proposal 5111 re-introduced switches, but 
didn't put switches in the Officer rule.

Switches weren't introduced into the Officer rule until Proposal 7586, 
24-Aug-13, and interestingly TOOK OUT the word "default" from the rule
(while keeping the general properties of being some kind of "default" 
later in the rule):

>From Proposal 7586:
> Amend Rule 1006 (Offices) by replacing:
> 
>   An office is a role defined as such by the rules.  Each office
>   is either vacant (default) or filled (held) by exactly one
>   player.  An officer is the holder of an office, who may be
>   referred to by the name of that office.
> with:
> 
>   Officeholder is an office switch tracked by the IADoP, with
>   possible values of any person or "vacant".  An officer is the
>   holder of an office, who may be referred to by the name of that
>   office.  If the holder of an office is ever not a player, it
>   becomes vacant.

Re: Re: DIS: We actually have no Officeholders.

[Alex Smith]

On Sun, 2017-07-09 at 09:54 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I checked the proposal history. There has been a time where Switches had
> higher Power than Offices, making its switch not a switch, ergo, there have
> been no Officeholders since (Possibly?).

Why would Switches having a higher power than Offices prevent offices
being switches? Defining a switch isn't secured.

[snip]
> - From the 2nd of August onwards, we have been in a state were there have
> been no Officeholders, because Switches need a default, and Officeholders
> had none, so it wasn't a switch. Proposal 5133, which would've solved the
> problem, actually hasn't been enacted - because there need to be Office(s)
> to do so (The Assesor, Promotor, etc). We didn't have the Anti-Ossification
> rules to prevent this either (and if they did, then Proposal 5111 would've
> actually never done anything, and we have never actually had our modern
> Switches)

Oh, I see. I'm nonetheless not convinced that a rule attempting to
define a switch in an invalid way is incapable of creating a tracked
piece of gamestate, though, even if it isn't technically a switch.

> Non-Proposal (and Non-Office dependent rule-changes in general, really)
> Rule-changes aside, the Ruleset hasn't actually changed since the 2nd of
> August 2007.

You're missing rule 2034, which is a really long-standing protection
against this sort of thing happening, and has been around for *ages*
(since 2002). Among other things, it handles precisely the case that
we're mistaken about the identity of the Assessor. In particular, if
everyone believes that a given player is the Assessor, that player can
legally assess proposal decisions (as nobody will object to it), even
if the player is not in fact the Assessor or there is no Assessor (or
the concept of the Assessor is undefined).

In terms of the messages elsethread about Ruleset ratification: it
works under the current ruleset (but only via proposal), but I'm not
100% sure it worked under all previous rulesets. (Also, on a related
subject, please confine any Ruleset ratifications to ratifying the SLR,
not the FLR; ratifying the latter can potentially force the Rulekeepor
to record an incorrect version of history, which isn't very useful,
whereas ratifying the former allows for an honest notation of any
changes that were made.)

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: We actually have no Officeholders.

[Cuddle Beam]

Assuming that its implicit isn't to "specify" it though.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/specify:"Identify clearly
and definitely."
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/specify: "to name or state
explicitly or in detail"
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/specify: "to mention or name specifically
or definitely; state in detail:"

I don't think that having it be implicit is to state anything explicitly or
specifically (neither clearly or in detail), as per the normal use of the
word.

On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 9:32 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, 9 Jul 2017, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> > On Sun, 9 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> >
> > > Additionally, such a Ratification would've attempted to Ratify the
> Ruleset
> > > (as in, the whole Ruleset), at once. But it wouldn't have been able to
> > > happen, because, " The number of the new rule cannot be specified by
> the
> > > enacting instrument; any attempt to so specify is null and void.", and
> > > since it would've attempted to specify the number of the would-be new
> rule,
> > > the attempts of Ratification of the Ruleset would've all been null and
> void.
> >
> > Hm.  Your argument is starting to have teeth.  (More so than PSS's
> > counterargument, in my opinion.)  But surely there must be some
> precedent on
> > whether the Ruleset can be ratified.
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Ørjan, waiting for G. to dredge up something.
>
> Well ok then... I'm not sure about the ratification bit, but the case that
> Vacant is the rules-specified Default is pretty straightforward to make by
> reading 1006:
>
> 1.  By R1006, if the game has no players, the only possible value for the
> switch is Vacant (in common language, it "defaults" to vacant), and
> vacant
> is always a possible value.
>
> 2.  Also in R1006, if an officeholder is "ever not a player" (i.e. in R2162
> language it would "fail to have a possible value" other than vacant, or
> is indeterminate), the switch is set to (again, "defaults" to) Vacant.
>
> 3.  These properties of Vacant are specified by the rules, and are
> sufficiently
> identical to the behavior of a default.  Further, there are no other
> Officer switch values with default-like properties, and there are no
> properties of the Vacant value inconsistent with it being the default,
> so
> (for the good of the game, where the rules are silent, etc.), it
> should be
> found that the current rules are sufficient to designate Vacant as the
> default, as required to be a switch.
>
> It's a general "if it walks like a duck" argument - if the rules require
> an Object to have property P in general, but instead define specific
> property
> Q that acts just like P and only like P (and nothing else acts like P),
> then
> Q is the "Agoran synonym" for P for that object, especially if the good of
> the
> game is at stake.
>
> Offhand the precedent I remember is one I judged where:
> 1.  All proposals were required to have a 'unique name' (this was before
> 'titles').
> 2.  A rules mechanism auto-generated certain proposals, but didn't specify
> any unique title or name for generated proposals.
> 3.  But the Promotor assigned ID numbers to the generated proposals, as
> e did with any proposal.
> 4.  I found that, since ID numbers had all the properties of a 'name',
> (unique, used to refer to the proposal, etc.) that the ID number was
> in fact the 'name'.
> (can't remember exact CFJ statement text so will have to dig, but will post
> it when I find it).
>
>
>

Re: DIS: We actually have no Officeholders.

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sun, 9 Jul 2017, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> 
> > Additionally, such a Ratification would've attempted to Ratify the Ruleset
> > (as in, the whole Ruleset), at once. But it wouldn't have been able to
> > happen, because, " The number of the new rule cannot be specified by the
> > enacting instrument; any attempt to so specify is null and void.", and
> > since it would've attempted to specify the number of the would-be new rule,
> > the attempts of Ratification of the Ruleset would've all been null and void.
> 
> Hm.  Your argument is starting to have teeth.  (More so than PSS's
> counterargument, in my opinion.)  But surely there must be some precedent on
> whether the Ruleset can be ratified.
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan, waiting for G. to dredge up something.

Well ok then... I'm not sure about the ratification bit, but the case that 
Vacant is the rules-specified Default is pretty straightforward to make by 
reading 1006:

1.  By R1006, if the game has no players, the only possible value for the
switch is Vacant (in common language, it "defaults" to vacant), and vacant
is always a possible value.

2.  Also in R1006, if an officeholder is "ever not a player" (i.e. in R2162
language it would "fail to have a possible value" other than vacant, or
is indeterminate), the switch is set to (again, "defaults" to) Vacant.

3.  These properties of Vacant are specified by the rules, and are sufficiently 
identical to the behavior of a default.  Further, there are no other
Officer switch values with default-like properties, and there are no 
properties of the Vacant value inconsistent with it being the default, so
(for the good of the game, where the rules are silent, etc.), it should be
found that the current rules are sufficient to designate Vacant as the
default, as required to be a switch.

It's a general "if it walks like a duck" argument - if the rules require
an Object to have property P in general, but instead define specific property
Q that acts just like P and only like P (and nothing else acts like P), then 
Q is the "Agoran synonym" for P for that object, especially if the good of the
game is at stake.

Offhand the precedent I remember is one I judged where:
1.  All proposals were required to have a 'unique name' (this was before 
'titles').
2.  A rules mechanism auto-generated certain proposals, but didn't specify
any unique title or name for generated proposals.
3.  But the Promotor assigned ID numbers to the generated proposals, as
e did with any proposal.
4.  I found that, since ID numbers had all the properties of a 'name',
(unique, used to refer to the proposal, etc.) that the ID number was
in fact the 'name'.
(can't remember exact CFJ statement text so will have to dig, but will post
it when I find it).

Re: DIS: We actually have no Officeholders.

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 9 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:


Additionally, such a Ratification would've attempted to Ratify the Ruleset
(as in, the whole Ruleset), at once. But it wouldn't have been able to
happen, because, " The number of the new rule cannot be specified by the
enacting instrument; any attempt to so specify is null and void.", and
since it would've attempted to specify the number of the would-be new rule,
the attempts of Ratification of the Ruleset would've all been null and void.


Hm.  Your argument is starting to have teeth.  (More so than PSS's 
counterargument, in my opinion.)  But surely there must be some precedent 
on whether the Ruleset can be ratified.


Greetings,
Ørjan, waiting for G. to dredge up something.

Re: DIS: We actually have no Officeholders.

[Cuddle Beam]

Well, OK. We might we going in circles now lol. I'll compile this up and
make a CFJ then. Thank you very much PSS, I appreciate the insight a lot.
It helped me find quite a lot of more interesting stuff for the case.

On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Ratification doesn’t modify anything, it just makes something true without
> the need for any process to occur.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On Jul 9, 2017, at 7:56 AM, CuddleBeam 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Yes, however the action of Ratifying itself wouldn't have been able to
> happen because it would've attempted to change the rules, with are
> preconditions in the rules that already existed for the ratification itself
> to take place.
> >
> > Imagine we added that:
> >
> > "Ratification can't be performed by anyone.", and then I attempted to
> Ratify and the Ratification "passed". It wouldn't have actually passed -
> just looked like it - because the Ratification wouldn't have been able to
> be done in the first place.
> >
> > That or the Ratification actually didn't add Rules, but that would
> contradict "When a document is ratified, the gamestate is modified so that
> the ratified document was completely true and accurate at the time it was
> published. Nevertheless, the ratification of a document does not
> invalidate, reverse, alter, or cancel any messages or actions, even if they
> were unrecorded or overlooked, or change the legality of any attempted
> action."
> >
> > Or, even if it was illegal, it actually happened (considering " change
> the legality of any attempted action."), in which case, can I attempt to do
> illegal stuff and have it be successful as if it was legal?
> >
> > So, before that Ruleset Ratification, there weren't circumstances for
> such a Ratification to actually be performed.
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > However, ratification would make it true and overrides the Rule Changes
> rule because with ratification it never changes anything, it makes things
> true instantaneously.
> > 
> > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jul 9, 2017, at 7:22 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> > >
> > > From: http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/
> msg00165.html , it contains Proposal 5101, which passed and amended the
> whole rule on August 1st and there was no other change until September -
> right at the timeframe of the vulnerability.
> > >
> > > So I got the Ratification rules of back then over here:
> > >
> > >   Any player CAN ratify any purported publication of all or part
> > >   of an official report, without objection.
> > >
> > >   When a document is ratified, the gamestate is modified so that
> > >   the ratified document was completely true and accurate at the
> > >   time it was published.  Nevertheless, the ratification of a
> > >   document does not invalidate, reverse, alter, or cancel any
> > >   messages or actions, even if they were unrecorded or overlooked,
> > >   or change the legality of any attempted action.
> > >
> > >   Where part of an official report has been the subject of a
> > >   ratification, the date of the most recent such ratification is
> > >   part of the same official report.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I also have the Rule Changes rules from back then,
> http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg2.html ,
> via Proposal 4940:
> > >
> > > Amend the rule titled "Rule Changes" to read:
> > >
> > >  Where permitted by other rules, an instrument generally can,
> > >  as part of its effect,
> > >
> > >  (a) enact a rule.  The new rule has power equal to the minimum of
> > >  the power specified by the enacting instrument, defaulting
> > >  to one if the enacting instrument does not specify, and the
> > >  maximum power permitted by other rules.  The enacting
> instrument
> > >  may specify a title for the new rule, which if present shall
> > >  prevail.  The number of the new rule cannot be specified by
> the
> > >  enacting instrument; any attempt to so specify is null and
> void.
> > >
> > >  (b) repeal a rule.  When a rule is repealed, it ceases to be a
> rule,
> > >  and the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a record of it.
> > >
> > >  (c) amend the text of a rule.
> > >
> > >  (d) retitle a rule.
> > >
> > >  (e) change the power of a rule.
> > >
> > >  A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes.
> > >  Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously.
> > >
> > >  Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that
> > >  change to be void and 

Re: DIS: We actually have no Officeholders.

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Ratification doesn’t modify anything, it just makes something true without the 
need for any process to occur.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On Jul 9, 2017, at 7:56 AM, CuddleBeam  wrote:
> 
> 
> Yes, however the action of Ratifying itself wouldn't have been able to happen 
> because it would've attempted to change the rules, with are preconditions in 
> the rules that already existed for the ratification itself to take place.
> 
> Imagine we added that:
> 
> "Ratification can't be performed by anyone.", and then I attempted to Ratify 
> and the Ratification "passed". It wouldn't have actually passed - just looked 
> like it - because the Ratification wouldn't have been able to be done in the 
> first place.
> 
> That or the Ratification actually didn't add Rules, but that would contradict 
> "When a document is ratified, the gamestate is modified so that the ratified 
> document was completely true and accurate at the time it was published. 
> Nevertheless, the ratification of a document does not invalidate, reverse, 
> alter, or cancel any messages or actions, even if they were unrecorded or 
> overlooked, or change the legality of any attempted action."
> 
> Or, even if it was illegal, it actually happened (considering " change the 
> legality of any attempted action."), in which case, can I attempt to do 
> illegal stuff and have it be successful as if it was legal?
> 
> So, before that Ruleset Ratification, there weren't circumstances for such a 
> Ratification to actually be performed.
> 
> On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>  wrote:
> However, ratification would make it true and overrides the Rule Changes rule 
> because with ratification it never changes anything, it makes things true 
> instantaneously.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> 
> 
> 
> > On Jul 9, 2017, at 7:22 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> >
> > From: 
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg00165.html , 
> > it contains Proposal 5101, which passed and amended the whole rule on 
> > August 1st and there was no other change until September - right at the 
> > timeframe of the vulnerability.
> >
> > So I got the Ratification rules of back then over here:
> >
> >   Any player CAN ratify any purported publication of all or part
> >   of an official report, without objection.
> >
> >   When a document is ratified, the gamestate is modified so that
> >   the ratified document was completely true and accurate at the
> >   time it was published.  Nevertheless, the ratification of a
> >   document does not invalidate, reverse, alter, or cancel any
> >   messages or actions, even if they were unrecorded or overlooked,
> >   or change the legality of any attempted action.
> >
> >   Where part of an official report has been the subject of a
> >   ratification, the date of the most recent such ratification is
> >   part of the same official report.
> >
> >
> >
> > I also have the Rule Changes rules from back then, 
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg2.html , 
> > via Proposal 4940:
> >
> > Amend the rule titled "Rule Changes" to read:
> >
> >  Where permitted by other rules, an instrument generally can,
> >  as part of its effect,
> >
> >  (a) enact a rule.  The new rule has power equal to the minimum of
> >  the power specified by the enacting instrument, defaulting
> >  to one if the enacting instrument does not specify, and the
> >  maximum power permitted by other rules.  The enacting instrument
> >  may specify a title for the new rule, which if present shall
> >  prevail.  The number of the new rule cannot be specified by the
> >  enacting instrument; any attempt to so specify is null and void.
> >
> >  (b) repeal a rule.  When a rule is repealed, it ceases to be a rule,
> >  and the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a record of it.
> >
> >  (c) amend the text of a rule.
> >
> >  (d) retitle a rule.
> >
> >  (e) change the power of a rule.
> >
> >  A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes.
> >  Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously.
> >
> >  Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that
> >  change to be void and without effect.  A variation in whitespace
> >  or capitalization in the quotation of an existing rule does not
> >  constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this rule, but any other
> >  variation does.
> >
> >  This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be created,
> >  modified, or destroyed, or by which an entity can become a rule
> >  or cease to be a rule.
> >
> >
> > I believe that your way about how the Rule would've 

Re: DIS: We actually have no Officeholders.

[Cuddle Beam]

>
> " That or the Ratification actually didn't add Rules, but that would
> contradict "When a document is ratified, the gamestate is modified so that
> the ratified document was completely true and accurate at the time it was
> published. Nevertheless, the ratification of a document does not
> invalidate, reverse, alter, or cancel any messages or actions, even if they
> were unrecorded or overlooked, or change the legality of any attempted
> action." "


As in that the Ratification was an action that didn't reverse or "hide"
itself - the Ratification doesn't remove that it happened as a process in
itself that did *something*, which would've been to change the rules.

On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 1:56 PM, CuddleBeam 
wrote:

>
> Yes, however the action of Ratifying itself wouldn't have been able to
> happen because it would've attempted to change the rules, with are
> preconditions in the rules that already existed for the ratification itself
> to take place.
>
> Imagine we added that:
>
> "Ratification can't be performed by anyone.", and then I attempted to
> Ratify and the Ratification "passed". It wouldn't have actually passed -
> just looked like it - because the Ratification wouldn't have been able to
> be done in the first place.
>
> That or the Ratification actually didn't add Rules, but that would
> contradict "When a document is ratified, the gamestate is modified so that
> the ratified document was completely true and accurate at the time it was
> published. Nevertheless, the ratification of a document does not
> invalidate, reverse, alter, or cancel any messages or actions, even if they
> were unrecorded or overlooked, or change the legality of any attempted
> action."
>
> Or, even if it was illegal, it actually happened (considering " change the
> legality of any attempted action."), in which case, can I attempt to do
> illegal stuff and have it be successful as if it was legal?
>
> So, before that Ruleset Ratification, there weren't circumstances for such
> a Ratification to actually be performed.
>
> On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> However, ratification would make it true and overrides the Rule Changes
>> rule because with ratification it never changes anything, it makes things
>> true instantaneously.
>> 
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 9, 2017, at 7:22 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>> >
>> > From: http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/ms
>> g00165.html , it contains Proposal 5101, which passed and amended the
>> whole rule on August 1st and there was no other change until September -
>> right at the timeframe of the vulnerability.
>> >
>> > So I got the Ratification rules of back then over here:
>> >
>> >   Any player CAN ratify any purported publication of all or part
>> >   of an official report, without objection.
>> >
>> >   When a document is ratified, the gamestate is modified so that
>> >   the ratified document was completely true and accurate at the
>> >   time it was published.  Nevertheless, the ratification of a
>> >   document does not invalidate, reverse, alter, or cancel any
>> >   messages or actions, even if they were unrecorded or overlooked,
>> >   or change the legality of any attempted action.
>> >
>> >   Where part of an official report has been the subject of a
>> >   ratification, the date of the most recent such ratification is
>> >   part of the same official report.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I also have the Rule Changes rules from back then,
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg2.html
>> , via Proposal 4940:
>> >
>> > Amend the rule titled "Rule Changes" to read:
>> >
>> >  Where permitted by other rules, an instrument generally can,
>> >  as part of its effect,
>> >
>> >  (a) enact a rule.  The new rule has power equal to the minimum of
>> >  the power specified by the enacting instrument, defaulting
>> >  to one if the enacting instrument does not specify, and the
>> >  maximum power permitted by other rules.  The enacting
>> instrument
>> >  may specify a title for the new rule, which if present shall
>> >  prevail.  The number of the new rule cannot be specified by the
>> >  enacting instrument; any attempt to so specify is null and
>> void.
>> >
>> >  (b) repeal a rule.  When a rule is repealed, it ceases to be a
>> rule,
>> >  and the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a record of it.
>> >
>> >  (c) amend the text of a rule.
>> >
>> >  (d) retitle a rule.
>> >
>> >  (e) change the power of a rule.
>> >
>> >  A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes.
>> >  Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously.
>> >
>> >  Any ambiguity in the specification of a 

Re: DIS: We actually have no Officeholders.

[CuddleBeam]

Yes, however the action of Ratifying itself wouldn't have been able to
happen because it would've attempted to change the rules, with are
preconditions in the rules that already existed for the ratification itself
to take place.

Imagine we added that:

"Ratification can't be performed by anyone.", and then I attempted to
Ratify and the Ratification "passed". It wouldn't have actually passed -
just looked like it - because the Ratification wouldn't have been able to
be done in the first place.

That or the Ratification actually didn't add Rules, but that would
contradict "When a document is ratified, the gamestate is modified so that
the ratified document was completely true and accurate at the time it was
published. Nevertheless, the ratification of a document does not
invalidate, reverse, alter, or cancel any messages or actions, even if they
were unrecorded or overlooked, or change the legality of any attempted
action."

Or, even if it was illegal, it actually happened (considering " change the
legality of any attempted action."), in which case, can I attempt to do
illegal stuff and have it be successful as if it was legal?

So, before that Ruleset Ratification, there weren't circumstances for such
a Ratification to actually be performed.

On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> However, ratification would make it true and overrides the Rule Changes
> rule because with ratification it never changes anything, it makes things
> true instantaneously.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On Jul 9, 2017, at 7:22 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> >
> > From: http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/
> msg00165.html , it contains Proposal 5101, which passed and amended the
> whole rule on August 1st and there was no other change until September -
> right at the timeframe of the vulnerability.
> >
> > So I got the Ratification rules of back then over here:
> >
> >   Any player CAN ratify any purported publication of all or part
> >   of an official report, without objection.
> >
> >   When a document is ratified, the gamestate is modified so that
> >   the ratified document was completely true and accurate at the
> >   time it was published.  Nevertheless, the ratification of a
> >   document does not invalidate, reverse, alter, or cancel any
> >   messages or actions, even if they were unrecorded or overlooked,
> >   or change the legality of any attempted action.
> >
> >   Where part of an official report has been the subject of a
> >   ratification, the date of the most recent such ratification is
> >   part of the same official report.
> >
> >
> >
> > I also have the Rule Changes rules from back then,
> http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg2.html ,
> via Proposal 4940:
> >
> > Amend the rule titled "Rule Changes" to read:
> >
> >  Where permitted by other rules, an instrument generally can,
> >  as part of its effect,
> >
> >  (a) enact a rule.  The new rule has power equal to the minimum of
> >  the power specified by the enacting instrument, defaulting
> >  to one if the enacting instrument does not specify, and the
> >  maximum power permitted by other rules.  The enacting instrument
> >  may specify a title for the new rule, which if present shall
> >  prevail.  The number of the new rule cannot be specified by the
> >  enacting instrument; any attempt to so specify is null and void.
> >
> >  (b) repeal a rule.  When a rule is repealed, it ceases to be a rule,
> >  and the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a record of it.
> >
> >  (c) amend the text of a rule.
> >
> >  (d) retitle a rule.
> >
> >  (e) change the power of a rule.
> >
> >  A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes.
> >  Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously.
> >
> >  Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that
> >  change to be void and without effect.  A variation in whitespace
> >  or capitalization in the quotation of an existing rule does not
> >  constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this rule, but any other
> >  variation does.
> >
> >  This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be created,
> >  modified, or destroyed, or by which an entity can become a rule
> >  or cease to be a rule.
> >
> >
> > I believe that your way about how the Rule would've been added is that
> the Ratification would've added it in, without an Assesor, would be via
> Ratification, but with the stuff found here in my dredging, I don't believe
> it would've worked. Adding that rule would've been a "rule change", and a
> "A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes.".
> >
> > The Ratification of the Ruleset 

Re: DIS: We actually have no Officeholders.

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

However, ratification would make it true and overrides the Rule Changes rule 
because with ratification it never changes anything, it makes things true 
instantaneously.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On Jul 9, 2017, at 7:22 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> 
> From: http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg00165.html 
> , it contains Proposal 5101, which passed and amended the whole rule on 
> August 1st and there was no other change until September - right at the 
> timeframe of the vulnerability.
> 
> So I got the Ratification rules of back then over here:
> 
>   Any player CAN ratify any purported publication of all or part
>   of an official report, without objection.
> 
>   When a document is ratified, the gamestate is modified so that
>   the ratified document was completely true and accurate at the
>   time it was published.  Nevertheless, the ratification of a
>   document does not invalidate, reverse, alter, or cancel any
>   messages or actions, even if they were unrecorded or overlooked,
>   or change the legality of any attempted action.
> 
>   Where part of an official report has been the subject of a
>   ratification, the date of the most recent such ratification is
>   part of the same official report.
> 
> 
> 
> I also have the Rule Changes rules from back then, 
> http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg2.html , via 
> Proposal 4940:
> 
> Amend the rule titled "Rule Changes" to read:
> 
>  Where permitted by other rules, an instrument generally can,
>  as part of its effect,
> 
>  (a) enact a rule.  The new rule has power equal to the minimum of
>  the power specified by the enacting instrument, defaulting
>  to one if the enacting instrument does not specify, and the
>  maximum power permitted by other rules.  The enacting instrument
>  may specify a title for the new rule, which if present shall
>  prevail.  The number of the new rule cannot be specified by the
>  enacting instrument; any attempt to so specify is null and void.
> 
>  (b) repeal a rule.  When a rule is repealed, it ceases to be a rule,
>  and the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a record of it.
> 
>  (c) amend the text of a rule.
> 
>  (d) retitle a rule.
> 
>  (e) change the power of a rule.
> 
>  A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes.
>  Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously.
> 
>  Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that
>  change to be void and without effect.  A variation in whitespace
>  or capitalization in the quotation of an existing rule does not
>  constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this rule, but any other
>  variation does.
> 
>  This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be created,
>  modified, or destroyed, or by which an entity can become a rule
>  or cease to be a rule.
> 
> 
> I believe that your way about how the Rule would've been added is that the 
> Ratification would've added it in, without an Assesor, would be via 
> Ratification, but with the stuff found here in my dredging, I don't believe 
> it would've worked. Adding that rule would've been a "rule change", and a "A 
> rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes.".
> 
> The Ratification of the Ruleset would've (attempted) to straight up made that 
> it was true that the rule was in there, but not that it had been actually 
> added at any time or actually *enacted*, which is the only mechanism via the 
> which the rule could change.
> 
> Additionally, such a Ratification would've attempted to Ratify the Ruleset 
> (as in, the whole Ruleset), at once. But it wouldn't have been able to 
> happen, because, " The number of the new rule cannot be specified by the 
> enacting instrument; any attempt to so specify is null and void.", and since 
> it would've attempted to specify the number of the would-be new rule, the 
> attempts of Ratification of the Ruleset would've all been null and void.
> 
> It might be good to raise a CFJ at this point but please let me know if 
> there's anything else that might cancel what I've pointed out.
> 
> On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>  wrote:
> The ruleset has probably been ratified since Proposal 5111 resolving that 
> problem.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> 
> 
> 
> > On Jul 9, 2017, at 3:54 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> >
> > I checked the proposal history. There has been a time where Switches had 
> > higher Power than Offices, making its switch not a switch, ergo, there have 
> > been no Officeholders since (Possibly?).
> >
> > Of course this would screw over a lot of things, would it be so, 

Re: DIS: We actually have no Officeholders.

[Cuddle Beam]

From:
http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg00165.html ,
it contains Proposal 5101, which passed and amended the whole rule on
August 1st and there was no other change until September - right at the
timeframe of the vulnerability.

So I got the Ratification rules of back then over here:

  Any player CAN ratify any purported publication of all or part
  of an official report, without objection.

  When a document is ratified, the gamestate is modified so that
  the ratified document was completely true and accurate at the
  time it was published.  Nevertheless, the ratification of a
  document does not invalidate, reverse, alter, or cancel any
  messages or actions, even if they were unrecorded or overlooked,
  or change the legality of any attempted action.

  Where part of an official report has been the subject of a
  ratification, the date of the most recent such ratification is
  part of the same official report.



I also have the Rule Changes rules from back then,
http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg2.html ,
via Proposal 4940:

Amend the rule titled "Rule Changes" to read:

 Where permitted by other rules, an instrument generally can,
 as part of its effect,

 (a) enact a rule.  The new rule has power equal to the minimum of
 the power specified by the enacting instrument, defaulting
 to one if the enacting instrument does not specify, and the
 maximum power permitted by other rules.  The enacting instrument
 may specify a title for the new rule, which if present shall
 prevail.  The number of the new rule cannot be specified by the
 enacting instrument; any attempt to so specify is null and void.

 (b) repeal a rule.  When a rule is repealed, it ceases to be a rule,
 and the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a record of it.

 (c) amend the text of a rule.

 (d) retitle a rule.

 (e) change the power of a rule.

 A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes.
 Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously.

 Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that
 change to be void and without effect.  A variation in whitespace
 or capitalization in the quotation of an existing rule does not
 constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this rule, but any other
 variation does.

 This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be created,
 modified, or destroyed, or by which an entity can become a rule
 or cease to be a rule.


I believe that your way about how the Rule would've been added is that the
Ratification would've added it in, without an Assesor, would be via
Ratification, but with the stuff found here in my dredging, I don't believe
it would've worked. Adding that rule would've been a "rule change", and a
"A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes.".

The Ratification of the Ruleset would've (attempted) to straight up made
that it was true that the rule was in there, but not that it had been
actually added at any time or actually *enacted*, which is the only
mechanism via the which the rule could change.

Additionally, such a Ratification would've attempted to Ratify the Ruleset
(as in, the whole Ruleset), at once. But it wouldn't have been able to
happen, because, " The number of the new rule cannot be specified by the
enacting instrument; any attempt to so specify is null and void.", and
since it would've attempted to specify the number of the would-be new rule,
the attempts of Ratification of the Ruleset would've all been null and void.

It might be good to raise a CFJ at this point but please let me know if
there's anything else that might cancel what I've pointed out.

On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> The ruleset has probably been ratified since Proposal 5111 resolving that
> problem.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On Jul 9, 2017, at 3:54 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> >
> > I checked the proposal history. There has been a time where Switches had
> higher Power than Offices, making its switch not a switch, ergo, there have
> been no Officeholders since (Possibly?).
> >
> > Of course this would screw over a lot of things, would it be so, but
> everything we're doing wouldn't actually matter if everything has been
> bogus since.
> >
> > Proto CFJ "After Proposal 5111 got enacted, there have been no
> Officeholders."
> >
> > Gratuitous Arguments:
> > - "Switches" (or at least the modern implementation of it, as it wasn't
> there before) were Created by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007. You
> can see that proposal here: http://www.mail-archive.com/
> agora-offic...@agoranomic.org/msg08096.html, and it says:
> >
> > Create a rule titled 

Re: DIS: We actually have no Officeholders.

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

The ruleset has probably been ratified since Proposal 5111 resolving that 
problem.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On Jul 9, 2017, at 3:54 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> 
> I checked the proposal history. There has been a time where Switches had 
> higher Power than Offices, making its switch not a switch, ergo, there have 
> been no Officeholders since (Possibly?).
> 
> Of course this would screw over a lot of things, would it be so, but 
> everything we're doing wouldn't actually matter if everything has been bogus 
> since.
> 
> Proto CFJ "After Proposal 5111 got enacted, there have been no Officeholders."
> 
> Gratuitous Arguments:
> - "Switches" (or at least the modern implementation of it, as it wasn't there 
> before) were Created by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007. You can see 
> that proposal here: 
> http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg08096.html, and 
> it says:
> 
> Create a rule titled "Switches" with Power 2 and this text:
> 
> "A type of switch is a property that the rules define as a switch, and 
> specify the following: (...)
> 2. One or more possible values for instances of that switch, exactly one of 
> which is designated as the default. No other values are possible for 
> instances of that switch."
> 
> - The Power of the Offices rule changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5133 
> (Zefram), 13 August 2007.
> 
> - Our Anti-Ossification protection didn't exist until Proposal 5536 (Murphy), 
> 7 June 2008, which added:
> 
> "In the interest of safeguarding Agora's nomic-ness, if a change to the 
> gamestate would otherwise make it IMPOSSIBLE to make arbitrary rule changes 
> and/or adopt arbitrary proposals within a four-week period by any 
> combinations of actions by players, then that change is canceled and does not 
> occur, any rule to the contrary notwithstanding."
> 
> - From the 2nd of August onwards, we have been in a state were there have 
> been no Officeholders, because Switches need a default, and Officeholders had 
> none, so it wasn't a switch. Proposal 5133, which would've solved the 
> problem, actually hasn't been enacted - because there need to be Office(s) to 
> do so (The Assesor, Promotor, etc). We didn't have the Anti-Ossification 
> rules to prevent this either (and if they did, then Proposal 5111 would've 
> actually never done anything, and we have never actually had our modern 
> Switches)
> 
> Non-Proposal (and Non-Office dependent rule-changes in general, really) 
> Rule-changes aside, the Ruleset hasn't actually changed since the 2nd of 
> August 2007.



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: We actually have no Officeholders.

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

In that case, there would have been no officers while it had a higher power, 
but afterwards officers would return.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On Jul 9, 2017, at 3:54 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> 
> I checked the proposal history. There has been a time where Switches had 
> higher Power than Offices, making its switch not a switch, ergo, there have 
> been no Officeholders since (Possibly?).
> 
> Of course this would screw over a lot of things, would it be so, but 
> everything we're doing wouldn't actually matter if everything has been bogus 
> since.
> 
> Proto CFJ "After Proposal 5111 got enacted, there have been no Officeholders."
> 
> Gratuitous Arguments:
> - "Switches" (or at least the modern implementation of it, as it wasn't there 
> before) were Created by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007. You can see 
> that proposal here: 
> http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg08096.html, and 
> it says:
> 
> Create a rule titled "Switches" with Power 2 and this text:
> 
> "A type of switch is a property that the rules define as a switch, and 
> specify the following: (...)
> 2. One or more possible values for instances of that switch, exactly one of 
> which is designated as the default. No other values are possible for 
> instances of that switch."
> 
> - The Power of the Offices rule changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5133 
> (Zefram), 13 August 2007.
> 
> - Our Anti-Ossification protection didn't exist until Proposal 5536 (Murphy), 
> 7 June 2008, which added:
> 
> "In the interest of safeguarding Agora's nomic-ness, if a change to the 
> gamestate would otherwise make it IMPOSSIBLE to make arbitrary rule changes 
> and/or adopt arbitrary proposals within a four-week period by any 
> combinations of actions by players, then that change is canceled and does not 
> occur, any rule to the contrary notwithstanding."
> 
> - From the 2nd of August onwards, we have been in a state were there have 
> been no Officeholders, because Switches need a default, and Officeholders had 
> none, so it wasn't a switch. Proposal 5133, which would've solved the 
> problem, actually hasn't been enacted - because there need to be Office(s) to 
> do so (The Assesor, Promotor, etc). We didn't have the Anti-Ossification 
> rules to prevent this either (and if they did, then Proposal 5111 would've 
> actually never done anything, and we have never actually had our modern 
> Switches)
> 
> Non-Proposal (and Non-Office dependent rule-changes in general, really) 
> Rule-changes aside, the Ruleset hasn't actually changed since the 2nd of 
> August 2007.



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: Re: DIS: We actually have no Officeholders.

[Cuddle Beam]

I checked the proposal history. There has been a time where Switches had
higher Power than Offices, making its switch not a switch, ergo, there have
been no Officeholders since (Possibly?).

Of course this would screw over a lot of things, would it be so, but
everything we're doing wouldn't actually matter if everything has been
bogus since.

Proto CFJ "After Proposal 5111 got enacted, there have been no
Officeholders."

Gratuitous Arguments:
- "Switches" (or at least the modern implementation of it, as it wasn't
there before) were Created by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007. You
can see that proposal here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg08096.html,
and it says:

Create a rule titled "Switches" with Power 2 and this text:

"A type of switch is a property that the rules define as a switch, and
specify the following: (...)
2. One or more possible values for instances of that switch, *exactly one
of which is designated as the default. *No other values are possible for
instances of that switch."

- The Power of the Offices rule changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5133
(Zefram), 13 August 2007.

- Our Anti-Ossification protection didn't exist until Proposal 5536
(Murphy), 7 June 2008, which added:

"In the interest of safeguarding Agora's nomic-ness, if a change to the
gamestate would otherwise make it IMPOSSIBLE to make arbitrary rule changes
and/or adopt arbitrary proposals within a four-week period by any
combinations of actions by players, then that change is canceled and does
not occur, any rule to the contrary notwithstanding."

- From the 2nd of August onwards, we have been in a state were there have
been no Officeholders, because Switches need a default, and Officeholders
had none, so it wasn't a switch. Proposal 5133, which would've solved the
problem, actually hasn't been enacted - because there need to be Office(s)
to do so (The Assesor, Promotor, etc). We didn't have the Anti-Ossification
rules to prevent this either (and if they did, then Proposal 5111 would've
actually never done anything, and we have never actually had our modern
Switches)

Non-Proposal (and Non-Office dependent rule-changes in general, really)
Rule-changes aside, the Ruleset hasn't actually changed since the 2nd of
August 2007.

Re: DIS: We actually have no Officeholders.

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

It uses an implied default of empty and given that it takes precedence per Rule 
1030, I believe that is fine.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On Jun 29, 2017, at 12:59 PM, CuddleBeam  wrote:
> 
> R2162 states that:
> 
> "A type of switch is a property that the rules define as a switch, and 
> specify the following:
> (...)
> 2. One or more possible values for instances of that switch, exactly one of 
> which is designated as the default. "
> 
> So stating a default is required for a Switch to be a Switch.
> 
> R1006 doesn't specify a default value for the its Officeholder Switch, 
> therefore its not a Switch.
> 
> Dun dun dn.



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail