On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In a conflict between Rules with different Power, the Rule with > the higher Power takes precedence over the Rule with the lower > Power, unless the Rule with the higher Power says otherwise.
We don't need this. Generally, when this comes up, it means one of three things: 1) The definition in the higher-powered rule doesn't actually need to be at that power, and it can be refactored out into a rule of the lower power. 2) The definition in the higher-powered rule does need to be at that power, and the lower-powered rule should be upmutated to match. 3) The definition in the higher-powered rule does need to be at that power but can safely be supplemented by rules of the lower power. In this case, the higher-powered rule should be rewritten to avoid creating a conflict in the first place. In general, drafting with precedence deferral is bad form, because it has the potential to bring about complex webs of precedent that must be unraveled in order to interpret the rules. If the rules are instead drafted to eliminate conflicts, then they're easier to read. In fact, I would support removing the existing unused deferral clause from R1030 altogether. The same reasoning is true for claims of precedence as well, but those are useful as a preventative measure, for preventing other rules of the same power from inadvertently interfering with an important rule's operation. They should still be used sparingly, however. -root
