On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 10 Sep 2010, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> 2855: TRUE
>> 2856: TRUE
>>
>> A substantive aspect of a rule pertains to /how/ a rule governs, not
>> /what/ a rule governs. With that argument eliminated, a low-powered
>> proposal is just as capable as a low-powered rule (they're both
>> instruments and they're both effective) of changing holdings whose
>> existence is defined by a high-powered rule (if the high-powered rule
>> doesn't attempt to prevent it, then there's no conflict).
>
> Question: where does it actually say in the rules that an Instrument
> can change a regulated quantity?
>
> The rules say:
> An instrument has positive power. (R1688)
> An instrument CANNOT affect something secured at a power greater than
> its own. (R1688)
> An instrument CANNOT affect the operation of a higher-powered
> instrument. (R2140).
> An instrument CAN make rule changes (R105).
>
> Nothing in here actually says that an Instrument can adjust regulated
> things generally. Now, the counterargument is exceptio probat regulam,
> that the fact that the Rules state that an instrument CANNOT make
> secured changes implies that it CAN make unsecured changes.
>
> However, this regulam is not in fact written, and it IS implied through
> R2125 and R101(i) that regulated actions CANNOT be done except as
> actually described by the rules.
>
> So where is it described?
Instruments generally, nowhere. Proposals in particular, the first
paragraph of R106:
When a proposal that includes
such explicit changes takes effect, it applies those changes to
the gamestate.
