On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2276a
Gratutious arguments:
Several interpretations have been thrown out, including (extended from
Murphy's post):
+S) 2126 takes precedence, so 2156 implicitly defines the initial
limit and 2126's increases stick.
-S) Even though 2126 takes precedence, 2126 only attempts to
operate once and 2156 attempts to operate conditionally, so
2126's increases happen but 2156 comes along afterward and
resets things.
+G) Even though 2126 takes precedence, it defers to Rule 2156
because the latter is defining a term used by the former (and
Rule 754 takes precedence over both).
-G) Rule 2156 defines voting limit as caste, so an attempt to
increase voting limit is in fact a failed attempt to increase
caste.
+A) Rule 2126's "increase" should be interpreted such that upon an
increase, Rule 2126 defines the voting limit as one higher than
it would otherwise be, in the fashion of an RPG.
Wooble's judgement agreed with -S, but e gave the issue only a
perfunctory treatment.
