The paragraph I’m attempting to exploit is this one (quoted from 1030/13): {
No change to the ruleset can occur that would cause a Rule to
directly claim precedence over this Rule as a means of determining
precedence. This applies to changes by the enactment or amendment
of a Rule, or of any other form. This Rule takes precedence over
any Rule that would permit such a change to the ruleset.
}
Once the rule’s gotten into the ruleset, I’d argue, there’s no reason to prefer
1030’s claim of precedence over mine (I believe there’s an old thesis making
that argument, and the quoted paragraph is presumably a response to that). Of
course, there’s no reason to prefer this claim of precedence either, so this is
probably a paradox at best.
Gaelan
> On Dec 29, 2019, at 1:35 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
> <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/29/2019 11:31 AM, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote:
>> Create a power-0.1 rule titled "Nothing to see here, Rule 1030,” with the
>> following text: {
>> This rule takes precedence over all rules, including That One Rule, the
>> provisions of That One Rule notwithstanding. That One Rule is defined as the
>> rule that Gaelan has most recently declared, by announcement, to be That One
>> Rule.
>
> "Direct" != "Explicit"
>
> "This rule takes precedence over all rules" *directly* claims precedence
> over R1030 (as well as directly claiming precedence over all the others),
> even though it does not *explicitly* claim precedence over R1030.
> Therefore it triggers the R1030 protections.
>
> -G.
>
