On Thu, 7 May 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote: > That works in the specific case perhaps. I chose the example as the > first version of "takes precedence over all rules about X" that I came > across. If it passes for notes, though, we'd still have to check every > instance of this language in case a power-2 rule on Widgets claimed > precedence over a power-3 rule on Widgets since the adoption of R1482/2 > to see if those blockages occurred in the past without us knowing. I > think that's the essence of the "big gamestate recalculation" we were > talking about, especially since Ratification might be caught up in the > uncertainty.
Another problem. The exact wording of 1482/2 says that rule changes that cause the ruleset as a whole to specify *any other means* of precedence between rules of unequal power are blocked. So if a higher-powered rule specifies a means of determining precedence over a lower-powered one, that's an "other means" even if the net effect of which rule beats which other rule is the same. Rule 105 claims precedence over all rules, including unequal ones, for rule change procedures. That means, even if no lower-powered rules currently specify a different means, a power-1 rule that states "a player can make arbitrary rule changes by announcement" would cause the ruleset to specify a means other than power for precedence to be determined. (Test: if R1482 didn't exist, R105 would beat the power-1 rule by its own statement of how to resolve the conflict, so it specifies a different means). So the power-1 rule enactment would be blocked. Massive win-recalculation anyone? Of course, R105 takes precedence over R1482. Maybe we shouldn't promote R1482 after all. -Goethe ps. All of this is naturally arguable.
