On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Tanner Swett <swe...@mail.gvsu.edu> wrote: > Rule 106 states, "Except as prohibited by other rules, a proposal that takes > effect CAN and does, as part of its effect, apply the changes that it > specifies." So I don't see a precedence issue here.
Good point, I forgot about that clause. However... > Hm, this seems like it could be scammed. If a rule of power 1.1 were enacted, > stating, "A proposal with power greater than 1 CANNOT apply any changes", > then Rule 106 would follow this instruction, thereby preventing proposals > with greater power from taking effect. Thus "Preventing a proposal from taking effect is a secured change". I interpret categorically preventing a proposal from making changes as preventing it from taking effect (however, I think the sneaky tricks my Wisconsin proposal would play would be able to get around this - timing attacks are fun.) > Rule 991 states that a subclass of judicial case has features "as defined by > other rules". Could a power-1 rule state that a Dictatorship Case is a class > of judicial case, and one of its features is that upon being created, its > power is immediately set to 2, then it immediately creates a power-2 rule > giving Queen Davy a dictatorship? I doubt any judge would hold that interpretation up.
