On Mon, 11 Dec 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > 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.
It's specifically what R217's "common language" clause is written to defend against. Really, there's no conceptual difference between what you're proposing and writing a Power-1 Rule that says "a by-announcement action is only clearly specified if Alexis specifies it." If R217 common definitions block that kind of scam, they should block re-defining almost anything about R478 at a power-1 level. So as written, you're setting up a low-powered CANNOT to compete with high-level CANs. The easy argument is "I'm not doing this action Conditionally, whatever that means. I'm doing it by announcement, which by precedent allows for a certain degree of uncertainty in specification. And the higher-level Rule says I CAN by announcement, which trumps that low-powered CANNOT." Also keep in mind, "conditionals" per se are only half the problem. For example "I transfer N-k Shinies where N,k = some game property of shinies" is not at all conditional, but is one of the semi-abuses we're talking about depending on how hard it is to calculate N. -G.
