On 1/11/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/11/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > H. Clerk of the Courts, I hereby Call for Judgement on the statement: > Rule 955 should be interpreted such a voting index of "Unanimity" cannot > meet or exceed any numerical adoption index. > > "Unanimity" is no longer defined anywhere in the Rules, so I think it > no longer has any numerical properties. It retains the properties it had when it was last defined, no?
How could you justify that? If something loses its definition then its properties are unknown. In programming if you have a pointer pointing to an object, and you delete that object, the pointer now points to who knows what. In our case here the pointer - Unanimity - pointed to a definition - exceeding any numerical adoption index - yet when that was deleted any references to Unanimity refer to something with now undefined properties.
