On 10/20/2019 2:36 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
> 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 When the rule is repealed, it's gone, and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 win, so if it causes a win, it hasn't been repealed".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.
But if the rule is repealed, it's not part of the power structure anymore,
either. R2449 states "When the Rules state that a person or persons win the
game, those persons win the game". If the rule has been repealed, the rules
just plain old don't state that anymore.
To sharpen it, this is basically the same as "when this sentence no longer
has any effect on the game, then the person wins". If the person wins due
to this clause, then the sentence is having an effect on the game, so the
condition hasn't been satisfied, so the person doesn't win.
-G.
