On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 at 13:23 Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote:
> Oh I personally don't want to change the current situation except use > CFJs to reign in the more unreasonable conditionals. But I *really* > don't want a broken implementation at power-1 to argue over, so if > there's a vote to be had it should be a vote over modifying R478. > Rule 217 says "the text of the rule*s* takes precedence" (emphasis mine). This implies that you have to look at the text of the rules as a whole in order to interpret them correctly, before turning to the other guidance. Because of this, a low-powered rule can, in general, fill in for the silence, inconsistency, or lack of clarity in a higher-power rule. It further restricts this by saying that lower-powered rules can't override common-sense definitions, but I don't think "clear" in this case is a common-sense definition, since it was defined largely by precedent. This implies to me that it is, indeed, open for redefinition by a rule of any power.
