On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> Gratuitous reply:
>
> I see what you're saying, and that this is generally what R1482
> intends, but I have a hard time saying that a claim "This rule takes
> precedence over matters of X" is not a direct specification of
> a means of determining precedence. It literally and directly is.
> It specifies the means "if the matter is X, defer to this rule".
>
> Linguistically, I just don't see a dividing lines between a "claim
> of precedence" and a "specification of a means of determining
> precedence". Both can be broad or narrow, both say "x has
> precedence over y under circumstances z", I don't see that any
> particular grammar or phraseology differentiates them.
I don't buy that. The rules are self-empowered, per R2141: "A rule is
a type of instrument with the capacity to govern the game generally."
Suppose I were to publish a document like the following:
{{{
Regulations of Agora
Regulation 1: These are the regulations of Agora. A regulation is a
body of text with the capacity to govern the game generally.
Regulation 2: Regulations take precedence over rules. Rules have no
capacity to govern the game.
Regulation 3: root is the Emperor of Agora.
}}}
Would you simply accept that by creating this document I had magically
superseded the rules? After all, the rules are self-empowered, and so
are these fictitious regulations.
-root
