Proposal: [Appendix] Prioritisation overrides actually override
Quorum Reached. Passes 8-0—Clucky
Adminned at 17 Apr 2021 04:17:26 UTC
This proposal modifies the Appendix.
Amend the subrule “Prioritisation” of the Appendix rule “Clarifications” by replacing
A Dynastic Rule has precedence over a Core Rule, unless that Core Rule explicitly says it can’t be overruled by a Dynastic Rule;
with
If a Core Rule explicitly says it cannot be overruled by a Dynastic Rule, that Core Rule has precedence over a Dynastic Rule, otherwise a Dynastic Rule has precedence over that Core Rule;
Amend the subrule “Prioritisation” of the Appendix rule “Clarifications” by replacing
A Special Case Rule has equal precedence as a Dynastic Rule, unless that Special Case Rule explicitly says it can’t be overruled by a Dynastic Rule;
with
If a Special Case Rule explicitly says that it cannot be overruled by a Dynastic Rule, that Special Case Rule has precedence over a Dynastic Rule, otherwise a Dynastic Rule has equal precedence as that Special Case Rule;
Currently it appears that if a Core or Special Case Rule says that it cannot be overruled be Dynastic Rule, the scope or negative tests apply, rather than the Core or Special Case Rule taking precedence. According to pokes, this is undesirable because currently only CfJs are protected in this manner.
pokes:
In the second change you have “that Special Case Rule precedence”, missing a ‘has’; it also changes Dynastic to have precedence by default over Special Case instead of equal. That’s not necessarily a problem given that no Special Case rules say they can’t be overruled.