On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 14:11 -0800, Kerim Aydin almost wrote (with rule number typos corrected): > I say that VL for a particular OD is a R754(2) Rules-defined term and > that R2156 clearly defines VLOD. It doesn't say "is set to" or "is > initially" but it is a Rules-based term definition "VLOD *is* (caste > at time X)". This is its whole Rules-defined range. I'd say that Rule 683 even more clearly defines VLOD, as "one, except where rules say otherwise". R2126 and R2156 both say otherwise; R2156 says that it's the Caste (possibly modified for chokey), and R2126 says that it CAN be increased by spending notes. CAN is defined by MMI as "Attempts to perform the described action are successful." So according to Rule 683, the VLOD of a player is their Caste, and attempts to increase a player's VLOD on a particular decision by spending notes are successful. This is marginally self-contradictory, I agree, so we have to look further. > > Therefore the R2156 definition is protected by R754, in that an > *action* that would set VLOD otherwise conflicts with a R754(2) Rules > definition. (Note that R754(2) was re-written recently to change > precedence for lower-powered definitions, this is not an issue as > the potential conflicting rules are both the same power). Where does R2156(2) say that definitions are powered above actions? It even says "by default", and refers to /meaning/. It implies that the meaning of "voting limit" in both R2156 and R2126 is the same as in R683, which is something that neither of us dispute, I expect. It does not suddenly elevate R2126 to power 3 because that's the power of R754! Nor does R754 say that definitions take precedence over actions or vice versa; where are you getting that distinction from? > > You are saying that the R2126 action permission indirectly "adds to" > to the definition/defined range (embraces and extends it?) but I firmly > disagree that an action can indirectly and implicitly extend a > definition. I just can't find that concept in the rules in a way that > would overrule R754. Further actions have a lower precedence than > definitions---If you try to say that a CAN overrules a definition, > I'll point out the relative precedence of R754 versus R2152 > (Mother, May I?). It isn't overruling R754, no conflict there (although R754 is definitely relevant). Neither R2126 or R2152 is overriding R754. R2152 is overriding R2126 (by defining a word in it); R754 is causing that overriding to happen. By analogy with your argument in the previous paragraph, CAN in R2126 takes effect at R754 power because R2152 says it does! That can't be right...
"I just can't find that concept in the rules in a way that would overrule R754. Further actions have a lower precedence than definitions" seems to be the core of your whole argument. To me, though, nowhere does R754 say that definitions take precedence over actions. Definitions define things; words in the rules. "Voting limit" is just words in the rules, whose meaning can be expanded. In this case its meaning expands into something that references all other rules, in no particular order. If a rule says that it's modified where rules say otherwise, and two rules modify it in contradictory ways, what happens? Probably game custom would go with precedence, which is R2126 over R2156. Here's the expanded sentence again: "the VLOD of a player is their Caste, and attempts to increase a player's VLOD on a particular decision by spending notes are successful". Intuitively, say that by itself, the action actually takes precedence over the definition pretty obviously as a case of specific clauses taking precedence over general ones in the same rule; but there isn't a rule to back that up. (BTW, if R2156 had said "A player's VLOD is their caste; a player's VL on one OD can be increased by spending a Note", would you think that makes a difference?) > > Remember that the various R754-scams revolved around inserting a > lower-powered definition of a term and having that term take > precedence over the actions surrounding it? The idea of > definitional precedence that I am espousing is why these sacams > worked (and they were generally accepted to work), hence the new > power deference in R754(2) to protect against such scams. Agreed, but I don't think that has any effect on this argument. -- ais523
