On Thu, 7 May 2009, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 6:08 PM, Ian Kelly <ian.g.ke...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 6:03 PM, comex <com...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> I don't buy that. The rules are self-empowered, per R2141: "A rule is >>>> a type of instrument with the capacity to govern the game generally." >>>> Suppose I were to publish a document like the following: >>> >>> I agree with everything that follows this paragraph, but after reading >>> it several times I can't figure out how it has anything to do with the >>> topic. :/ >> >> I claim that the thing that prevents a new rules-like document from >> superseding the rules is the same thing that prevents a relatively >> low-power rule change (i.e. the one that created R2229) from >> contravening a high-power rule like R1482. > > Or to look at it another way, a low-power rule change that contravenes > a high-power rule is, in effect, a change to the high-power rule. If > that change wasn't caused by an instrument with sufficient power, it > can't happen.
That's the issue I think. I agree that all those changes couldn't happen. The problem is we thought they did happen for a long time. -Goethe
