On Tue, 2 May 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>
> Maybe we should move that back into the ruleset.
We purposefully got rid of a bunch of rules interpretation guidance stuff that
were basically close-enough-to-common-sense that most/many people would
interpret it that way anyway, and if not, the idea was that we could use CFJ
precedent. There was also the thinking "if we want to *depart* from common
sense,
now we have a blank slate with which to do so".
I think a couple of those we got rid of turned out to be (via CFJ) very useful
and
were put back, but most haven't been. Here's a simple version:
Rule 1586/2 (Power=2)
Definition and Continuity of Entities
No two Rule-defined entities shall have the same name or
nickname.
If the Rules defining some entity are repealed or amended
such that they no longer define that entity, then that
entity along with all its properties shall cease to exist.
If the Rules defining an entity are amended such that they
still define that entity but with different properties,
that entity and its properties shall continue to exist to
whatever extent is possible under the new definitions.
In later versions, the "same name" part was expanded, probably due to a scam
similar to the "Dictator" one you were thinking about (this replaced the first
sentence of the above):
If multiple rules attempt to define an entity with the same
name, then they refer to the same entity. A rule-defined
entity's name CANNOT be changed to be the same as another
rule-defined entity's name.
A rule referring to an entity by name refers to the entity that
had that name when the rule first came to include that
reference, even if the entity's name has since changed.
