On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Ed Murphy <[email protected]> wrote:
> comex wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 7:15 AM, Alex Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > >> (One argument was that > >> their version of R101 was sufficiently garbled that it was not only > >> possible to bind other people to contracts against their will, but that > >> being bound to a contract against your will was illegal!) > > > > This is why we can't have nice things. > > There are a lot of things weird about B (many Agorans would call them > "broken", I think, but in B they're largely part of the culture by > now). In particular: > > * Precedence is solely by rule number, and the anti-mousetrap clause > is way down in Rule 57 (Rule 0 basically allows a sufficient number > of complainants to stop normal gameplay long enough to legislate > themselves out of any mess whatsoever, but Rule 0 itself has > recently been the target of some scam attempts). To be fair, it's only -default- precedence that is determined by rule number. This was introduced as a stopgag measure to reduce the likelihood of paradoxes arising. Rules can still explicitly claim precedence over each other. BP
