On Thu, 2009-05-07 at 06:11 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Both views can't be right. Has the phrase "this matter claims > precedence over matters of X" been in an UNDECIDABLE conflict with > R1482 all along? Was Rule 2229's claim of precedence (allegedly > enacted 2008 or later) allegedly IMPOSSIBLE due to the second > paragraph of R1482 (adopted 2007)?
H. Rulekeepor comex, could you please publish to a-d, or link to a website containing, the ruleset as of the adoption of R1482/2? If we're going to have a Massive Gamestate Recalculation, we may as well have a good starting point. (The links on your website appear to go to the current ruleset, not historical rulesets.) We may be able to fix the issue via a proposal that would work under any of the rulesets in question. I suggest that it should repeal the existing precedence rules, sort out precedence, and then recreate a fixed version of the precedence rules, then ratify the ruleset. -- ais523
