There's bug reports open for this - long time open apparently, so it's not surprising that people think it's intended. I don't ultimately care - if it's "now" an intended feature, we should close those bugs and update the Rules pages. If it's not, then the bugs need to be fixed in due course.
The "starting production" part of the statement could be interpreted as the queueing up the production. It doesn't explicitly state that that the person starting production must be in the production faction at the time the production actually begins.
You say "just sayin" as if it's a reasonable interpretation of a Rule that was written in a different context (when what i described was exactly how it worked when the rule was written). You can't interpret a rule written a decade ago as if people wrote it in today's context. The words themselves might be construable in different ways, but the proper interpretation requires consideration of the context at the time of drafting. It wasn't this way when rules were drafted, so no that's not the right interpretation of the Rule.
When the bug was discovered, nobody said it was a feature or intended. It's still a bug unless and until the Admins make a decision calling it a feature (in which case we can update the rules). Whether anybody bothers to "fix" the bug that is decidedly more convenient for producers than the rules, or if anybody bothers to get confirmation that the behaviour is actually an intended Feature, is above my pay grade.
Yes, that is exactly what I am "sayin'". It isn't necessary to have a complete historical understanding of when and why a particular rule was written to interpret it. That one statement can reasonably be interpreted to mean that the person who queues up production must be in a production faction at the time that the entities are queued. It does not say that the person must be in the faction at the time that the entity begins production.
“The words themselves might be construable in different ways, but the proper interpretation requires consideration of the context at the time of drafting.”
That's a ridiculous expectation considering that none of the rules have a date tag associated with them. How am I to know that the rule you pointed out wasn't updated last year? I've played this game for nearly a decade and the last thing I pay attention to is when rules are changed.
I already said the words could be construed in different ways - that's fine, you can be
ignorant or make a limited interpretation based solely on the words - but don't pretend it's wholly reasonable to be ignorant of all context of the rule and still be snide as if it's somehow proof the behaviour is not a bug. Your interpretation of the Rule is wrong, and your position on the importance of context in examining the interpretation of the meaning of a Rule is asinine.
In your rush to showcase your superior knowledge of the SWC rules history, you missed my original point. IF a rule can be interpreted to support a current function of the game, then it is reasonable to interpret it that way. If the interpretation is wrong, fine. I have no problem with you pointing that out. But I think you need to turn your level of condescension down a notch or two. It IS possible to have a discussion and a disagreement without calling someone asinine.
My last statement on this is that game rules should be straightforward and should not have to be interpreted within some unknown context, such as when it was written. We're not interpreting the U.S. Constitution here. It's a game.
You realize all this condescension is a direct result of you snidely purporting that interpretation as obviously correct (the common meaning of "just saying" when emphasized), and then taking an asinine position (Not you, your position) on how proper that interpretation is and how fine it is to be ignorant.
I don't remember seeing those bug reports Kay. Been busy as hell though, can you DM me the numbers?
From what I remember the intended function is how I described because in the case of larger production entities, like SY4s, a person would have to remain in that faction for over 4 days during that retool until the actual production starts.
I vaguely remember discussing that with whoever made Production 2.0 but that was a number of years ago.
Yeah, no question it's more convenient than either: i) Re-Assigning the Op to someone staying in the faction; or ii) staying in-faction while it retools. I remember having to do that crap a lot, but AFAIK 'active member staying in-faction until production actually starts' is how the Faction Type and Membership requirements are supposed to work to prevent trivializing them. Not my call obviously.
I'll DM you the bug reports. Seems like it's been like this for 3 years, so might as well leave it as is and call it a feature. Run it up the chain, I guess. If that's all fine, i'll dig out my draft Production Rules revamp from years ago and start correcting/clarifying out of date stuff.