On Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 8:31 PM RadicalRose via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > In the Discord snail argues the following (presumably against): > >"ineffective" is just shorthand for what [R2659] already says i think, > doesn't look like this worked. Also Mother May I is just a list of > definitions and isn't really involved in precedence calculations because of > that. The "CAN" in the stamps rule is only power 1 compared to the power 3 > INEFFECTIVE in the fee-based actions rule > > To this I respond by saying the third bullet point in [2] is opposing not > the power 1 "CAN" in R2659 (Stamps) but instead the power 3 "CAN" in R2125 > (Regulated Actions) which again takes precedence over the higher id R2579 > (Fee-based Actions). > > -- > RadicalRose > Hat: knitted cap > I don't think i was very clear here so i'll elaborate: The "CAN" in R2125 (Regulated Actions) *can't* be opposed, because it's a definition. The only thing that could oppose a definition is another definition. The bullet point has to be opposing whatever Rule says the action "CAN" take place, not the definition of CAN. If this scam does theoretically work otherwise, it's at least limited to rules that out-precedence the fee-based actions rule. (Invoking a definition provided in a Power 3 rule does not make the statement it's used in Power 3.) -- snail
