On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 7:11 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > On 3/24/2020 8:27 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > > > > Gratuitous arguments in CFJ 7: > > > > This is well-written and reasonable, but (even if only in the spirit of > devil's advocate) here's a simple counterargument: > > The important bit of R112 reads: > The state of affairs that constitutes winning may not be altered > from achieving n points to any other state of affairs. > This gives the strong implication that, at initiation, the "state of > affairs that constitutes winning" is solely achieving n points, and for > that to be true, the rules must be "born" in a state in which R112 > overrules R219. I understand your point about an implication, but that's not what the text of the rule actually says. I don't think the fact that a rule implies something is enough to cause it to contradict and override another rule; if we let that happen, the text of the rule would no longer be the controlling factor. Things are crisp and clear if you decide it by the text, and if we add in our human implications it just makes things fuzzy. The rule clearly and directly prohibits specific types of change, and I simply don't see a textual basis for reading it to do anything else. -Aris
