On 12/29/2019 1:15 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote:
On Dec 29, 2019, at 1:35 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 12/29/2019 11:31 AM, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote:
Create a power-0.1 rule titled "Nothing to see here, Rule 1030,” with the
following text: {
This rule takes precedence over all rules, including That One Rule, the
provisions of That One Rule notwithstanding. That One Rule is defined as the
rule that Gaelan has most recently declared, by announcement, to be That One
Rule.
"Direct" != "Explicit"
"This rule takes precedence over all rules" *directly* claims precedence
over R1030 (as well as directly claiming precedence over all the others),
even though it does not *explicitly* claim precedence over R1030.
Therefore it triggers the R1030 protections.
Once the rule’s gotten into the ruleset, I’d argue, there’s no reason to prefer
1030’s claim of precedence over mine (I believe there’s an old thesis making
that argument, and the quoted paragraph is presumably a response to that). Of
course, there’s no reason to prefer this claim of precedence either, so this is
probably a paradox at best.
That's the exact reason is why R1030 is written that way - R1030 prevents
the rule from "getting into the ruleset" in the first place. When you
say "precedence over all rules" it's a straightforward precedence claim
of the sort that's blocked from taking effect, the bit of obfuscation
over "That One Rule" notwithstanding.
-G.
