On Mon, 2010-04-26 at 14:40 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote: > Arguments: > > This is a classical case of the Paradox of Self-Amendment. The rule says > that "If any change to the gamestate would cause ... any change in the > effect or attributes of this rule ... including its repeal ... it is > cancelled and does not occur." but also that "If this rule already fails > to have its full effect due to a rule, that rule is repealed." Does this > mean that the rule would cause its own repeal because it prevents itself > from taking full effect? Since this clause comes later in the rule, it > should take precedence (by Rule 2240), which would cause its own repeal.
I remember making a similar argument in IRC; the potential rule contradicts itself as to whether or not it affects itself, and the contradiction causes it to repeal itself. -- ais523
