Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Thu, 7 May 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote: >> Kerim Aydin wrote: >>> On Thu, 7 May 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >>>> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Another problem. �The exact wording of 1482/2 says that rule changes >>>>> that cause the ruleset as a whole to specify *any other means* of >>>>> precedence between rules of unequal power are blocked. >>>> >>>> It may be relevant that it says "stipulate" rather than "specify". As >>>> a term used primarily in a legal context, it has its meaning in that >>>> context, "to accept (a proposition) without requiring that it be >>>> established by proof". No rule accepts a different means of >>>> determining precedence without proof, so the gamestate is fine. QED. >>> >>> But rules do so stipulate. A sentence that says "This rule has precedence >>> over rules about rests" is stating a proposition (axiom if you will) >>> for which no further proof is required. If R1482 didn't exist, that >>> sentence would independently and would still describe a means of >>> precedence that is complete without proof. -Goethe >> >> It can be plausibly read either way; the rules are silent on which >> interpretation is correct; the good of the game clearly demands we >> choose the one that doesn't require massive gamestate recalculation. > > What do you mean by "either way"? In what way does "This rule has > precedence over rules about rests" *not* state a means of determining > precedence that is complete without further proof? (e.g. > "stipulate"). Maybe I'm not understanding something. -Goethe
There are two competing senses of "stipulate" to choose from: Wooble's, by which no rule currently "stipulates" anything, and the crisis-causing one, by which lots of proposals probably had no effect and the gamestate requires massive recalculation. I submit that R217's "good of the game" favors the former.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
