On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, comex wrote:
> Whether or not I attempted to repeal a rule, repealing doesn't destroy
> the thing but merely cause it to "cease to be a rule", which
> definitely counts as modifying an aspect of it. By Rule 105 it's
> impossible to actually destroy a rule at power < 3.
Ah, I'd forgotten myself that this clause:
This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be
created, modified, or destroyed, or by which an entity can
become a rule or cease to be a rule.
specifically separates out "destroyed" from "ceasing to be a rule".
The old version:
This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be
enacted, modified, or repealed.
Seems to be a part of Zefram's mass generalizations. Although even
with the distinction, when something ceases to be a rule, it pretty
much no longer exists in legal Agoran terms (at least in normal
circumstances), so it's hard to say that's not legally "destroying"
it.
-G.
