On Wed, 14 May 2008, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Wed, 14 May 2008, Alexander Smith wrote: >> ehird wrote: >>> Rule 2140(c) implies that no entity with a power less than 3 can >>> modify any substantive aspect of an instrument with power greater than >>> its own, defining a "substantive" aspect of an instrument as any >>> aspect that affects the instrument's operation. Therefore, in order to >> Hmm... wouldn't this line of reasoning stop the anarchy scam from working? >> More to the point, wouldn't it imply that the town fountain never ended up >> there in the first place? > > Quite possibly! R2140 didn't exist when the fountain was erected, there > was no general idea that altering "substantive aspects" wasn't allowed. > > But this raises the issue in the other direction. If anarchy doesn't work, > does that mean any time that a lower-power rule provides a definition that > affects a higher-power rule, that definition is broken? That would break a > substantial subset of the Rules. Badly.
Oh, hey we're safe: Rule 754 allows definitions in the Rules (regardless of power) to affect all the rules, even those of higher power. R754 has precedence over R2140 (and in fact, doesn't necessarily conflict). So anarchy (and Rules definitions in general) work. Phew. -Goethe
