Pavitra wrote: > Aaron Goldfein wrote: >> I CFJ on the following sentence. When a judge with judicial rank 0 has >> eir judgement overruled on appeal, then it is decreased by 1 and e >> CANNOT increase it for 30 days afterward. >> >> Evidence: >> >> Rule 2226 >> >> When a judgement is overruled on appeal, if the prior judge's >> rank is higher than 0, then it is decreased by 1, and e CANNOT >> increase it for 30 days afterward (the rest of this rule >> notwithstanding), unless eir new rank is 0, in which case e CAN >> increase it to 1 at any time with 3 support. >> >> Arguments: >> >> The issue is with the wording of the rule in question. That is, does >> the text "the rest of this rule notwithstanding" cause "unless eir new >> rank is 0, in which case e CAN increase it to 1 at any time with 3 >> support" to be withstanding? >> >> -Yally > > I believe you've found a genuine, unambiguous, bug. > > I also think "unless" constitutes a claim of precedence. Do we have > rules or precedents about what happens when two contradictory clauses in > the same Rule each claim precedence over the other?
Rule 2240, but things like "unless" have generally been interpreted as *avoiding* conflict (rather than resolving it when it occurs) because the first clause declines to apply under the circumstances.
