Murphy's thread reply, meant to go to discussion I think.
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 12:02:17 -0800
From: Edward Murphy <emurph...@zoho.com>
To: Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu>
G. wrote:
On 2/24/2019 10:11 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
> The ultimate point is that the CFJ doesn’t consider the
differencesbetween > the situation where ONE rule claims
priority/deference to the other and
> the other is silent, versus when BOTH rules give INCONSISTENT
> priority/deference answers, versus when both rules give CONSISTENT
> priority/deference (in which case no conflict because the rules
agree, and
> therefore no R1030).
I wholly agree, and that's by design. The first clause of R1030 makes it
clear that rules simply cannot defer or prefer to higher/lower powers -
it's
very purposeful security. This is why it's important to treat clauses like
"except as prohibited" as signaling conflicts to be resolved via R1030,
rather than as "lack of conflict". Otherwise, we're permitting rules to
delegate things to lower-powered rules contrary to R1030.
I disagree with part of this. R1030 does prevent a higher power rule
from deferring to a lower power rule, but that doesn't extend to "except
as prohibited" because they're not actually equivalent. One is "I'm
limiting conflict by limiting my claimed scope", the other is "I'm
allowing conflict but also stating 'I defer'", which either (a)
implicitly allows R1030 to decide what "I defer" actually does, or (b)
implicitly conflicts with R1030's decision (which R1030 wins by its own
clauses, and the intentional lack of anything explicitly and effectively
contradicting R1030). Just as a low-power rule claiming "I take
precedence over high-powered rules" conflicts with R1030 and loses that
conflict.
Note that limiting one's scope need not say "except". Consider a
low-power rule saying "Players CAN X" and a high power rule saying
"Officers CANNOT X"; these don't conflict on the subject of whether a
non-Officer Player CAN X.
There's an entirely-independent protection worth considering, in R2140 -
even if a higher-powered rule defers to a lower powered-one, if the lower-
powered one then makes use of that deference to "set or modify a
substantive
aspect" of the higher-powered rule, which is further defined as "any"
aspect, it may be blocked.
If (a hypothetically amended) R1030 was satisfied that HPR effectively
deferred to LPR, then arguably HPR is setting/modifying the aspect by
saying "whatever LPR says goes".
