> On Aug 14, 2020, at 11:34 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The below CFJ is 3874. I assign it to Gaelan.
>
> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3874
> <https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3874>
>
> =============================== CFJ 3874 ===============================
>
> If G. demonstrated a Rulebending Form with text {This statute
> takes precedence over all rules of power equal to this statute.
> This statute, not any rule, determines the relative precedence of
> rules and non-rule statutes in cases where they contradict. Rules
> to the contrary notwithstanding, ais523 hereby becomes a
> Rulebending Magister.}, this would be effective in making ais523 a
> Rulebending Magister.
2633/0 reads, in part: {
When e does so, the form's power is set to the power of this
rule, it takes effect as an ephemeral instrument, and then its power
is set to 0. However, a rulebending form CANNOT apply any of the
following changes:
- rule changes;
- the creation, destruction, or transfer of assets;
- the flipping of switches;
- the creation, modification, or termination of any pledge, promise,
or contract;
- the changing of an entity's rulebending magister status.
}
The word "however" is commonly understood to limit the scope or effect of a
previous sentence. Therefore, I find that the last sentence is an integral
clause of what allows the Form to take effect. It doesn't take effect at power
1; it takes effect at power-1-except-it-can't-do-certain-things. This isn't an
ordinary conflict between instruments, judged by power; the inability to change
rulebending magister status is a fundamental property of the Form's taking
effect, and nothing gives it authority to override this restriction (2613/0
does state that "An ephemeral instrument CAN, where explicitly permitted to do
so by the law governing it, override the effect of an enduring instrument
within its scope by modifying", but 2633 gives no such permission). Therefore,
I find FALSE.
Gaelan
