Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ526 and a spinoff

[Wonko <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> On 4/7/02 at 12:58 AM Wonko wrote:
> 
>> It doesn't matter if the rules have changed since then; at the time of the
>> passing of rules 500 and 501, 293 made them illegal. The action of creating
>> them violated a rule; thus it was illegal. Saying, "Oh, well, now it's
>> legal, so we'll pretend it was legal then, too" is an illegal alteration of
>> the past.
> 
> Is there an actual rule that says it's illegal to create rules that conflict
> with other rules?  I didn't think there was; that's why my judgment was what
> it was.  If the players insist on creating rules that conflict with other
> rules, it's just handled by conflict resolution mechanisms.
> 
> Glotmorf


The issue is not creating a rule that's in conflict with another rule. It's
creating a rule which is forbidden by another rule. It's perfectly okay to
create a rule that says "A is true" and another that says "A is false", but
it's not legal to make a rule that says "No rule may say that A is false"
and another that says "A is false".


--Wonko

"Attention to health is lifes greatest hindrance. "
    - Plato

"Plato was a bore. "
    - Friedrich Nietzsche

"Nietzsche was stupid and abnormal. "
    - Leo Tolstoy

"I'm not going to get into the ring with Tolstoy. "
    - Ernest Hemingway

"Hemingway was a jerk. "
    - Harold Robbins