Pavitra wrote: >The problem is that I'm not sure whether rule 1030 recognizes >"notwithstanding" as a valid means of claiming precedence.
It does. R1030 doesn't directly govern what qualifies as claiming precedence. It speaks of a rule that "explicitly says" that it defers to another rule; it doesn't have such a qualifier for claiming precedence, but what we customarily require is similar. "Notwithstanding" is a pretty explicit claim of precedence. If you're interested in working in this area, Maud (sometime player, currently watcher) has offered a nominal reward for a proposal that does away with the current precedence mechanism altogether. See if you can avoid rule conflicts entirely, or (easier) if you can come up with a more structured way to manage precedence relationships. Btw, one of my first proposals back in 1995 was to invert the numerical criterion in R1030, so that newer rules would take precedence over old ones, as is the case in Westminster-style statute law. It did not find favour with the voters. Now, with more experience, I can see why the slight bias in favour of entrenchment is a good thing. -zefram
