On Thu, 16 Dec 2010, omd wrote: > On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > On Thu, 16 Dec 2010, omd wrote: > >> This escalator is really boring because it's been used repeatedly and > >> I've already won. However, it may be necessary if I can't get the > >> switch thing to work. > >> > >> Accordingly, I intend, With Notice, to cause Rule 2324 to amend Rule > >> 2223 by appending the text: "Also, the power of Rule 2324 is set to > >> 2." > > > > Er, how exactly are power-1 instruments doing that against R2140? > > This text from Rule 2186 (power-2): > > a) For each Winning Condition satisfied by at least one of > those persons, its cleanup procedure (if any) occurs.
That's worth a test, but I think the cleanup procedure is still as specified by an instrument of power-1. Haven't we similarly tested that dependent actions occur at the power of each specifically defined dependent action, and not at the power of R1728?
