On Thu, 20 Nov 2008, comex wrote: > On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I recommend REMAND with instructions to explicitly evaluate the two >> competing interpretations: >> >> +S) 2126 takes precedence, so 2156 implicitly defines the initial >> limit and 2126's increases stick. >> >> -S) Even though 2126 takes precedence, 2126 only attempts to operate >> once and 2156 attempts to operate conditionally, so 2126's >> increases happen but 2156 comes along afterward and resets things. > > Gratuitous arguments: > > An increase that remains in effect for an infinitesimal amount of time > is no increase at all.
Agreed, the following gratuitous arguments were not circulated with the case; I repeat them: > Gratuitous counterargument: > R2156, in defining that a voting limit *is* a caste level (as opposed > to saying "is set to" a caste level) constitutes a whole and complete > definition of a particular voting limit. As a definition, R2156 governs > the properties of the voting limit that are possible to exist (R1586)-- > it is no more possible to set a voting level to deviate from a player's > caste than it would be possible to set a voting limit to be a chunk of > green cheese. Such a definition constitutes an implicit claim of > precedence for the purposes of R1030. Since R2156 and R2126 are of the > same power, and R2126 does not itself claim to have greater precedence, > this claim should be sufficient to establish R2156's authority in the > matter.
