On Sun, 2019-10-20 at 14:30 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Does this actually work? When the rule is repealed, it's gone, and > therefore can't cause a win. You could say it's a fencepost issue (e.g. the > repeal and the win happen simultaneously) but that doesn't really work, > because it's a logical contradiction: "only an existing rule can cause a > win, so if it causes a win, it hasn't been repealed".
I don't think it's impossible for a rule to specify consequences for repealing it. I agree that the interaction with rule 2449 is unclear, though. Power could be involved here: a natural reading of the new rule is that it's implying an additional consequence into the mechanism that repeals it, but I'm not sure it's possible to do that without outpowering the mechanism in question. -- ais523
