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

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 4/7/02 at 6:37 PM Wonko wrote:

>Quoth Glotmorf,
>
>> 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

I disagree.  The nature of the existence of rules is defined rather clearly in the mechanisms for proposing and implementing rules.  If a rule says, "No rule may say 'blah'", it is not saying a rule cannot exist that says 'blah'; it is merely saying that it would be in conflict with such a rule, and that therefore, if it takes precedence, the rule in question would have no effect and would thus, for all practical purposes, not say 'blah'.

I don't think I would support a rule that could cause other rules to cease to exist after they've been enacted independent of the proposal process.  I'm content with the current mechanisms for establishing precedence.  If a rule is purely a no-op because of another rule, someone can always propose the removal of more cruft. (What IS "cruft," anyway?)

						Glotmorf