Zefram wrote:
This did not cause any rule to acquire a number previously used by a different rule, which is what's going on here.
It suddenly occurs to me that this unique precedent gives us two entities with the same name and/or nickname by R1586 (self- reference alert: is a Rule a Rules-defined entity?) "Name" is different than "title" but in this case both the number and title are identical. So was the renumbering prohibited? Probably not, as the rule governing renumbering had higher precedence than R1586. We must therefore assume that R1586 demands a unique way to distinguish the "old" 105 and the "new" 105. The only consistent interpretation may be that 105 be given an "amendement number" unique from past ones. This is all speculative. Comments encouraged. -Goethe
