On Fri, 22 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > However, one interesting point here is > whether it's rule 106 or the proposal enacting the rules; it seems very > clear that it's the proposal itself (especially because it's the > proposal's power that matters to enact the rules), and interestingly, > there are no rules for governing precedence between rules and proposals.
I'm remembering either a precedent or a discussion saying that if a proposal does something that's impossible by the rules, the proposal does it instantaneously but then the rule reasserts itself when the proposal's "taking effect" wears off. For example, if a proposal says "the power of Rule 1482 is hereby set to Green Cheese" (where green cheese isn't a possible state for a power index) then it is instantaneously green cheese but wears off afterwards. But this is all sounding a little nutty as I type it. Does anyone recall actual precedents like this? By the way, it's still possible to be found guilty of the class-4 crime of invisibilitating. Let's be careful out there. -Goethe
