Missing obvious kind of extreme case:
{
Power 3: Players can Declare Quanging by announcement, unless another rule
contains the word “Walruses”.
Power 1: Walruses are a currency tracked by the Zoologist. [...]
}
On Sun, 24 Feb 2019, Gaelan Steele wrote:
Some thought experiments:
{
Power 3: Players can Declare Quanging by announcement, unless another rule
contains the text “Players can’t Declare Quanging.”
Power 1: Players can’t Declare Quanging.
}
{
Power 3: Players can Declare Quanging by announcement, unless another rule
describes a circumstance in which players can not do so, and that circumstance
applies.
Power 1: Players can’t Declare Quanging unless hold at least 5 coins.
}
{
Power 3: Players can Declare Quanging by announcement, unless another rule
contains text prohibiting doing so.
Power 1: Players can’t Declare Quanging unless hold at least 5 coins.
}
{
Power 3: Players can Declare Quanging by announcement, unless another rule
prohibits doing so.
Power 1: Players can’t Declare Quanging unless hold at least 5 coins.
}
Gaelan
On Feb 24, 2019, at 10:40 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> 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.
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.
