Re: [s-b] [s-d] To the MoQ

["Aaron Coquet" <farfromunique@xxxxxxxxx>]

>
> Consultation 76:
> {
> At the start of nday 10 of nweek 135, would it have been possible for
> the Rulekeeper to move Rule 3-13 into a different section of the
> Rules?
>
> Unbeliever: 0x44
> }
> I reassign this to Priest Aaron C.


While I feel that the point is now moot, and this should be ZOTted, I will
answer anyway. Please ignore this answer if this gets ZOTted.

Rule 3-13 (and everything else that it got turned into) was a paradox
waiting to happen. There is a reason my refresh proposal eliminated it.
Take the following wording:

> Change the text of all rules between 3-12 and 3-14, non-inclusive, to be
> "Fish!"

Most people (or at least most people familiar with the style of numbering
and the words involved) would recognize that as meaning "Rule 3-13's text
has been changed to "Fish!"".
Now, /IF/ we acknowledge that Rule 3-13 doesn't exist /in spite of being in
the ruleset/, then this rule has no effect.
The end result, really, is the same: the rule between 3-12 and 3-14 does not
exist. Thus, it cannot be moved.

My answer, annoyingly enough, is NO.
Oracularity:
{
If there is any rule currently which, as the entirety of it's text, claims
that another rule does not exist, remove that rule.
}
-- 
Aaron C
"H. P. Lovecraft is Rock and Roll" -- Neil Gaiman
Don't Panic!
_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business