> On Feb 24, 2019, at 1:16 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote:
>
> What's missing from this analysis, in my view, is that it's not purely A>B,
> it's actually "A>B about fact P". So if two rules say different things
> about P, the two rules can wholly agree, via an explicit
> precedence/deference handshake, on whether A or B wins the conflict, but
> "fact P" is still the "conflict".
Apologies, I’m not sure I understand how this changes the analysis. If
{X(p)>Y(p) & Y(p)<X(p)}, then I don’t see the conflict or why R1030 comes into
play at all.
> So I would characterize the {X > Y on P & Y< X on P} situation as "both
> rules agree on how the conflict about P is to be resolved". I think that
> interpretation is foreseen and supported under this R1030 clause:
> - If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of
> itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of Rule) or takes
> precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), then such
> provisions shall be used to resolve the conflict, unless they
> lead to contradictions between each other;
I think this clause comes into play when there are 2 rules of the _same_ power,
where one has a deference/priority clause and one does not. In that case, you
give effect to the deference/priority clause.
And you can broaden this to a situation of 2+ equal power rules, where fewer
than all of them have deference/priority clauses.
> That clause foresees that there may be 2+ clauses that form a handshake ("at
> least one of the Rules"), and still define that handshake as "provisions
> used to resolve the conflict [over P]", saying that if the 2+ clauses agree
> with each other, you've resolved the conflict over P (rather than defining
> away the conflict over P as being "not a conflict"), and additionally
> stating that if those conflict-resolution clauses themselves conflict, you
> don't apply this step.
