On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 13:41 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> > This argument fails utterly: quote the first half of that sentence
> > {{{
> > If the documents defining an entity are amended such that they
> > still define that entity but with different properties,
> > }}}
> > and the then clause fails to apply. No way is spending a Note to
> > increase voting limit /amending/ the rules that define voting limit.
>
> Um, I'm talking about the rule defining Voting Limit, which was
> previously amended. Voting Limit has been amended to define "Voting
> Limit *is* Caste". Therefore, the above rule says that Voting Limit
> exists exactly to the extent possible under its new definition, and
> that definition starts and ends with voting limit=caste, and it is
> *simply not possible* by R1586 for voting limit to exist in a state
> other than its caste. So any rule claiming otherwise would have to,
> at least, supersede R1586.
>
> I don't have precedence backwards unless 1586 is somehow numerically
> greater than 2126. Or are you redefining ordinal numbers, too?
That's a ridiculous stretch. Is Voting Limit an entity? Even if it is,
your argument implies that newer rules /always/ take precedence over
older ones with numbers greater than R1586.
For instance, say R1587 says that all players may vote. R1588 is
adopted, which says that no player but ehird and comex may vote. Now,
the ability to vote is still defined by the rules, but with different
properties. So R1586 says that the newer rule takes precedence.
Your argument contradicts itself: it's "lower rule numbers take
precedence therefore higher rule numbers take precedence".
There isn't a problem here: R1586 isn't triggered at all. It's to do
with things such as Contracts, which are rules-defined and exist outside
the rules somehow, and which can continue to exist when the contract
rules are amended.
Anyway, even if your argument does work, which it doens't, a trivial
counterargument is to say that after R2156 was added, voting limit
changed from being defined by the rules beforehand to the /combination
of R2126 and R2156/. Please, tell me how this means that R1586 magically
chooses to give R2156 precednce not R2126?
--
ais523
