============================== CFJ 2486 ==============================
A Rule and its text can have different power.
Called by scshunt: 03 May 2009 15:34:09 GMT
Assigned to Wooble: 04 May 2009 15:34:59 GMT
Judged FALSE by Wooble: 04 May 2009 17:51:03 GMT
Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:
Well, one potentially worrying problem here; if a rule's text has a
lower power than the rule itself (say 0), then the text cannot affect
any aspect of the rule's operation. So how on earth does the rule know
what it's enforcing?
Arguably, the text is part of the rule, thus must have the same Power.
(For instance, the first half of a passed proposal has the same Power as
the proposal itself.)
Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:
The text can be duplicated in different context (e.g. as
the text of a proposal or contract), but then arguably it isn't "its
[the rule's] text" any more.
Judge Wooble's Arguments:
I judge FALSE. From R2141, the content of a rule takes the form of a
text. That text is in essence the rule, and when considered as a
separate entity it's not that rule's text.
As Murphy points out, the text may be duplicated in a different
context, and this duplicate text, as an entity with 0 power (assuming
it's duplicated in a non-instrument), may be character-for-character
equal as a string to the text of the rule, while missing the
rule-nature that would allow us to call it "the same text".