On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 2:09 AM omd wrote: > This leaves the text as "inconsistent", and Rule 217 informs us to > augment it by the usual factors. In this case, "game custom" clearly > supports higher-power rules taking precedence over lower-power ones. > So does "common sense": the ruleset as a whole is clearly designed > with that expectation,
This isn't motion-worthy or anything, but it's worth pointing out that if "common legal definitions" are used, you get the opposite conclusion. At least in the U.S., standard interpretation (e.g. of constitutional law) is that later amendments overrule earlier ones in a conflict.
