> On Sep 21, 2017, at 11:23 AM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I could write an Agency with that same thing + output, for example, something > like: > > ---*--- > Any agent may take 1 shiny from Cuddlebeam and the following clause has no > effect. > > Any agent may take 2 shiny from Cuddlebeam and the previous clause has no > effect. > ---*—
An agency isn’t an Instrument or a Proposal. Both of those classes of document are “special” in rules-defined ways, and special by precedent. Paradoxical documents generally are actually quite well handled: they have no effect, even if the kind of document they are would otherwise have an effect. Instruments, however, have the capacity to govern*, via the framework laid out in rules 1688 (“Power”) and 105 (“Rule Changes”). This capacity is considerably broader than the capacity of an Agency to define the powers of Agents. By historical convention, _rules_ - the primary kind of governing instrument - may in fact be paradoxical, and the paradoxes are taken to be “real” in as far as the term is meaningful. It’s not much of a stretch, based on the above, to extend that kind of exceptionality to instruments generally. -o * Yes, I know that that’s not what rule 2141 (“Roles and Attributes of Rules”) says. Bear with me.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
