Index ← 2513 CFJ 2514 2515 → text
==============================  CFJ 2514  ==============================

    The phrase "This takes precedence over any other rule" in Rule
    2229/1 takes precedence over the first sentence in Rule 1482/2 for a
    matter of spending rests.

========================================================================

Caller:                                 G.

Judge:                                  Yally
Judgement:                              TRUE

========================================================================

History:

Called by G.:                           07 May 2009 13:11:05 GMT
Assigned to Yally:                      08 May 2009 06:13:16 GMT
Judged TRUE by Yally:                   15 May 2009 00:27:14 GMT

========================================================================

Caller's Arguments:

In the past, when a low-powered rule has claimed precedence over a
certain matter (e.g. rests), we have reasoned that "R1030 allows this
claim to work for rules of the same power, but R1482 overrules this
claim for rules of different power."

However, it is also generally agreed that if R1482 (high power) says
that high powered rules have precedence over lower ones, and that if
a low power rule says that low powered rules have precedence over
higher ones, we have a genuine UNDECIDABLE type of paradox.  (Hence
the addition of the second paragraph in R1482).  This argument does
not change if the matter the lower powered rule claims precedence
over is limited in scope (e.g. to Rests).

Both views can't be right.  Has the phrase "this matter claims
precedence over matters of X" been in an UNDECIDABLE conflict with
R1482 all along?  Was Rule 2229's claim of precedence (allegedly
enacted 2008 or later) allegedly IMPOSSIBLE due to the second
paragraph of R1482 (adopted 2007)?

Why would the paradox be avoided just because a lower-powered claim
of precedence limited its domain to specific areas?  It's still
a claim of precedence, or "a means of determining precedence" in
the language of R1482, and it doesn't restrict its claim to rules
of the same or lower power.

========================================================================

Caller's Evidence:

Rule 2229/1 (Power=2)
Just Resting

      Owning one or more Rests is a Losing Condition.

      While a person owns at least 8 Rests, that person CANNOT spend
      Notes except to destroy Rests e owns.  This takes precedence
      over any other rule.

      While a player owns at least 24 Rests, that player CAN be
      deregistered by any player by announcement.  A person who owns
      at least 6 Rests, or where every member of eir basis owns 6
      Rests, CANNOT register, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.

      A person who has one or more rests but is not a player is a
      Fugitive.  The Herald's monthly report shall include a list of
      all Fugitives and the number of Rests they possess.  At the
      beginning of each month, half of each Fugitive's rests (rounded
      down) are destroyed.

Rule 1482/2 (Power=3)
Precedence between Rules with Unequal Power

      In a conflict between Rules with different Power, the Rule with
      the higher Power takes precedence over the Rule with the lower
      Power.

      No change to the Ruleset can occur that would cause a Rule
      to stipulate any other means of determining precedence
      between Rules of unequal Power.  This applies to changes by
      the enactment or amendment of a Rule, or of any other form.
      This Rule takes precedence over any Rule that would permit
      such a change to the Ruleset.

Rule 1030/6 (Power=3)
Precedence between Rules with Equal Power

      If two or more Rules with the same Power conflict with one
      another, then the Rule with the lower ID number takes
      precedence.

      If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of
      itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of Rule) or
      takes precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), then such
      provisions shall supercede the numerical method for determining
      precedence.

      If all of the Rules in conflict explicitly say that their
      precedence relations are determined by some other Rule for
      determining precedence relations, then the determinations of
      the precedence-determining Rule shall supercede the numerical
      method for determining precedence.

      If two or more Rules claim to take precedence over one another
      or defer to one another, then the numerical method again
      governs.

========================================================================

Gratuitous Arguments by Wooble:

a rule's claim that it takes precedence over
some other rule or set of rules doesn't specify "a means of
determining", but rather constitutes a claim to be considered using
whatever existing means of determining precedence exist in the rules;
this is implicit from the structure of R1030 and R1482 and game custom
that such claims work on their common sense reading rather than
failing to be enacted as an attempt to specify a new means of
determining precedence.

Indeed, taking a rule's claim of precedence as itself specifying a
means of determining precedence would make the last paragraph of R1030
meaningless; under this interpretation, why should we accept R1030's
claim that one of the rules takes precedence based on rule number as
taking precedence over both of the other rules' contradictory claims?

========================================================================

Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

I see what you're saying, and that this is generally what R1482
intends, but I have a hard time saying that a claim "This rule takes
precedence over matters of X" is not a direct specification of
a means of determining precedence.  It literally and directly is.
It specifies the means "if the matter is X, defer to this rule".

Linguistically, I just don't see a dividing lines between a "claim
of precedence" and a "specification of a means of determining
precedence".  Both can be broad or narrow, both say "x has
precedence over y under circumstances z", I don't see that any
particular grammar or phraseology differentiates them.

========================================================================

Judge Yally's Arguments:

By the arguments I specified in 2513, Rule 2229 specifically claims precedence
over Rule 1482. Had Rule 1482 claimed to take precedence over "all other
rules" in the same way that Rule 2229 does, there would be a conflict.
However, because the ruleset lists only one way for the conflict to be
resolved (in another part of Rule 1482), that must be the way in which it is
revolved. But that is not the case here.

========================================================================