Zefram wrote: > But if HP2 was never a player then e was categorically incapable of being > speaker. R103, imposing that restriction, takes precedence over R402.
Does this mean that "cutoff for challenges", in the protection of the proposal system, is outweighed any time the challenge is related to a rule with higher precedence? I'm not sure the notion of "cutoff for challenges" is that broken. Quite simply, most of the judicial system is platonic by tradition, but that's nowhere specified in the rules. "Cutoff for challenge" rules impose a pragmatism regardless of precedence, without contradicting other rules. "Cutoff for challenges" can be treated like ratification. When the cutoff occurs, the gamestate is "ratified" so that the consequences of those records stand, while not implying the ultimate platonic truth (whatever that means) of those records. We accept that it was wrong, but we don't retcon the game back beyond that cutoff. -Goethe
