On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, comex wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> > This clearly wins by Legislation if it's taken as deferring to (being
> > intercepted by?) the power-1 Rule 2188. But does it (power-3 instrument)
> > override the power-2 clause in R2186: "The game CANNOT be won in any other
> > way, rules to the contrary notwithstanding." and also directly award a win
> > by
> > Sheer Willpower?
>
> Isn't there a precedent that the rules override the instantaneous
> effect of proposals, even at lower power?
I thought there was one for continuous effects versus instantaneous. So
if I set power of something to -pi*i it's "reset" to its default somehow.
But for competing instantaneous effects (awarding a win) or for changing
something from one legal value to another legal value, I don't think it's
addressed when it's not explicitly secured.
After all, any proposal that does something like "make ais523 the
officeholder" is outside/against the rules, but we accept it as overriding
the other methods for setting such things.
When it is explicitly secured, the power matters, so the AI-3 proposal
would override the power-2 securing rule.
-G.
