On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 12:22 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-10-06 at 12:18 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 10:42 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On Sun, 5 Oct 2008, ehird wrote:
>> >> On 5 Oct 2008, at 14:41, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>> >>> That's odd... which rule is saying that an AI=3 proposal can affect a P=4
>> >>> rule?
>> >> Rule 2140/0 (Power=3)
>> >> is power 3. Thus AI=3 proposals are ominipotent.
>> > So a power-4 Rule is amendable at AI-3, but not by just saying "the
>> > following power-4 proposal is amended to read..."
>> How do you get that? The rule says that "No entity with power below
>> [3] can...modify any other substantive aspect of an instrument with
>> power greater than its own." It plainly does not apply to power-3
>> instruments.
> I submit the following proposal (AI=3.1, II=1, Title="This one probably
> ought to fail..."):
> {{{
> Increase the power of rule 2140 to 3.1.
> }}}
There's very little practical difference betweet AI 3 and AI 3.1. If
we're willing to allow AI 3.1 proposals to modify any rule, why not
allow AI 3 proposals to do the same?
-root
