So, starting with a trivial case, I think it’s pretty clear that a player
registering does not constitute a “change in the ruleset,” even though it
affects the functioning of rules with regard to that person. My goal was word
the rule such that it under the same case. However, an argument could be made
that the change here is somehow more “fundamental” because it affects the
relationship between rules themselves, and therefore is a rule change.
Gaelan
> On Dec 29, 2019, at 3:06 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
> <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 12/29/2019 1:51 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
>> On 12/29/19 4:39 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
>>> That's the exact reason is why R1030 is written that way - R1030 prevents
>>> the rule from "getting into the ruleset" in the first place. When you
>>> say "precedence over all rules" it's a straightforward precedence claim
>>> of the sort that's blocked from taking effect, the bit of obfuscation
>>> over "That One Rule" notwithstanding.
>>>
>>> -G.
>>>
>> So, perhaps something like this would work?
>> {
>> This Rule takes precedence over That One Rule, provisions of That One Rule
>> notwithstanding. That One Rule defaults to Rule 101, but CAN be changed by
>> Gaelan by announcement.
>> If That One Rule is Rule 1030, this rule takes precedence over all rules.
>> Gaelan CAN award emself the patent title "The Powerless" by announcement.
>> }
>> This way, when enacted, it doesn't claim precedence over Rule 1030, so R1030
>> won't prevent it from being enacted.
>
> I agree that this case is more interesting and open to interpretation.
>
> My guess is the Rule would take effect, but R1030 couldn't become "That One
> Rule" (the announcement to that effect would fail), due to: "This applies to
> changes by the enactment or amendment of a Rule, or of any other form" and
> that one of the "other forms" includes causing a reference defined in the
> rule to start pointing to R1030.
>
> The reference would be less "direct", the question is would it be indirect
> enough? "Direct" isn't a term that's been interpreted very much in CFJs,
> at least as far as I can remember.
>
> Another thing to think about is that R1030 blocks "changes in the ruleset"
> which is broader than blocking "rule changes" (which are limited to R105
> definitions of rule changes). It would be interesting to know if "changes
> in the ruleset" includes "changes in interpretation of the ruleset".
>
> -G.
