On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 12:40 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Agreed, the following gratuitous arguments were not circulated with the case; > I repeat them: > > > Gratuitous counterargument: > > R2156, in defining that a voting limit *is* a caste level (as opposed > > to saying "is set to" a caste level) constitutes a whole and complete > > definition of a particular voting limit. As a definition, R2156 governs > > the properties of the voting limit that are possible to exist (R1586)-- > > it is no more possible to set a voting level to deviate from a player's > > caste than it would be possible to set a voting limit to be a chunk of > > green cheese. Such a definition constitutes an implicit claim of > > precedence for the purposes of R1030. Since R2156 and R2126 are of the > > same power, and R2126 does not itself claim to have greater precedence, > > this claim should be sufficient to establish R2156's authority in the > > matter.
Gratuitous arguments: This actually argues in comex's favour. It is indeed possible to set a voting limit to a different value. This does not create an implicit claim of precedence for R2156 though; far from it! It means that R2126 has the claim of precedence, as it's claiming to do something R2156 claims is impossible. Imagine R1 saying "Goethe CAN deregister by paying 1 Stem" and R2 saying "Goethe CANNOT deregister"; R1 clearly takes precedence here, due to the direct conflict. If it had been R1 saying "Goethe CAN deregister by paying 1 Stem" and R2 saying "Every second, Goethe becomes unable to deregister", then it's no longer so clear; there might not be a conflict due to deregistration-ability becoming some sort of flip-state there. When there's an obvious direct conflict between two rules, as there is here, there isn't an implicit claim of precedence on either; there's an explicit clash, and the more powerful rule, or the rule with the lower number, takes precedence. -- ais523
