On 8/9/20 3:28 PM, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote: > Jason wrote: > >> Counter-proposal counter-argument: >> >> Rule 2162 uses similar phrasing for switch security: >> >>> A Rule that designates >>> a switch as "secured" (at a given power level) designates changes >>> to the properties of that type of switch as secured (at that power >>> level) and designates changes to the value of each instance of the >>> switch as secured (at that power level). > This differs from the zero-fee clause because it's balanced, using > "designates" on both sides, i.e. the other rule needs to have won any > precedence battles already or else this doesn't kick in at all. Or > there are rules that are passive on both sides, e.g. "To allow X is > to allow Y". But the zero-fee clause was imbalanced, written more like > "a rule that /purports/ to do X thereby /does/ do Y", which more > commonly appears in the context of self-ratifying documents (where > the intended subtext is to use this type of imbalance on purpose: even > if the document "purporting to be the X's report" actually isn't, e.g. > because we were wrong about who holds the office of X, we still intend > it to self-ratify unless there's a timely CoE or CFJ about it).
So you think it should use the same verb on both sides? "A rule that purports to provide a fee-based method with a fee of no assets for an action instead purports to enable the performance of the action by announcement."? -- Jason Cobb
