On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > I CFJ on the following: The phrase "This takes precedence over any other > rule" in Rule 2229/1 attempts to specify a means of determining precedence > between rules of unequal as well as equal power for a particular matter > of spending rests. > > I CFJ on the following: The phrase "This takes precedence over any other > rule" in Rule 2229/1 takes precedence over the first sentence in > Rule 1482/2 for a matter of spending rests.
Gratuitous arguments: a rule's claim that it takes precedence over some other rule or set of rules doesn't specify "a means of determining", but rather constitutes a claim to be considered using whatever existing means of determining precedence exist in the rules; this is implicit from the structure of R1030 and R1482 and game custom that such claims work on their common sense reading rather than failing to be enacted as an attempt to specify a new means of determining precedence. Indeed, taking a rule's claim of precedence as itself specifying a means of determining precedence would make the last paragraph of R1030 meaningless; under this interpretation, why should we accept R1030's claim that one of the rules takes precedence based on rule number as taking precedence over both of the other rules' contradictory claims?
