Ed Murphy wrote: >If it can circumvent the following set of separate steps: > > 1) Create a rule that re-defines "repeal" to mean something else > 2) Create a rule that re-defines, say, "nkep" as a synonym of the > ordinary-language meaning of "repeal" > 3) Nkep the unamendable rule (and the rules created above)
Theoretically it's trivial: have the core rules define, or reference without allowing overrides, the language in which the rules are written. This hole exists only because we use natural language and expect to be able to do natural-language things with it. See CFJ 858 which is concerned with whether such redefinition is possible in Agora. -zefram
