On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: > You can not flip a switch to a value that the switch already held or at least > that would make sense. > ---- > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
I don't see any text in the ruleset that would make me believe a switch cannot be flipped to the value it is currently set to. Especially since "Flip" is a term of art defined textually, not contextually. In casual and contextual cases, "flip" usually indicates multiple exclusive states that can only be modified by changing from one state to another [1]. However, the ruleset definition of "flip" indicates to me that switches can be "flipped" to any legal value, including their current value. The exact language, >>"To flip an instance of a switch" is to make it come to have a given value. makes me believe that a switch can be flipped to any of the switch's legal values. As long as it comes to have the given value, it's a legal change. In this case, the player flipping the switch is just making it come to have the given value of "player," and it is coincidental that its current value is also "player." If the textual definition of "flip a switch" made the switch come to have a DIFFERENT value, I would agree. But right now, all I see is that "flipping a switch" just means "setting the value," rather than "changing the value." Adding "different" may be a good decision in the future. There are immediate possible impacts on registration date in this specific scenario. Not a big thing in the current ruleset but it could affect one's ability to give and receive white ribbons. Could also make a player subject to any "new player restrictions" like the ones that used to exist and have been discussed now. Curiously, the ruleset used to have language specifically stating that only non-players could register (R869/9 and R869/17), but that language has been lost over time.[2] [1]: I concede that, in some contexts, "flip" means "to rotate an object along its horizontal axis." [2]: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1648 On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: > I recommend that the Referee accept this apology and issue a green card if > any card. > ---- > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com If I were a player, I would recommend avoiding punishment absent a CFJ indicating that omd actually committed an infraction. But I'm not, so idk. Maybe someone else would make that recommendation on my behalf. -grok
