Oh, and REMIT instead of REMAND because I'd like to see a fresh perspective on the issue.
— On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Tanner Swett <[email protected]> wrote: > I opine REMIT without prejudice on 3300a. While Judge Walker's > arguments are reasonable, I think there is serious doubt that the > "Golemness" of a rule (if it can be changed persistently) is not a > substantive aspect of the rule. In particular, Golemness is certainly > an aspect of a rule, and it certainly affects (although not directly) > the overall *behavior* of the rule, if not actually directly affecting > the rule's internal operation. In addition, I don't think there is any > place in the rules where a non-substantive aspect of a higher-powered > instrument is modified in order to achieve a significant effect; > perhaps we could safely say that a "substantive aspect" of an > instrument is an aspect that ultimately has some effect on the > instrument's overall behavior. > > And I certainly think that doing such things as turning rules into > Slave Golems is something that ought to be impossible below the power > of the affected rule. > > —Machiavelli
