Consider the existing rules:

“At any time, a Member may place a Price Tag on a Recipe on eir Bowl.”

“A Price Tag cannot be place on a Recipe that already has a Price Tag.”

When read literally, these two statements contradict each other. However, the second rightly overrides the first.

It seems to me the proposed rule does not adequately embody our existing unwritten precedence rules, which I feel are superior.

because it does not solve a problem.

I think unwritten rule are that the more specific rule takes precedence. Dynastic taking precedence over Core would fit with that, but I imagine there are some exceptions.

(Core taking precedence over Dynastic is broken; if a Dynastic rule says “dead players may not make proposals”, the Core “players may make proposals” steamrollers it.)

pending further discussion. (Partly because of the “if a small number of players say X, break the ruleset” clause.)

Yes, that’s what I was trying to express.

  Agree’d, specific over general should be the rule.

I think specific over general is the way to go, however such a definition could largely be subjective. So, I would prefer the MtG approach to rules: 1) Can’t takes precedence over Can. 2) Effects which depend on other effects, apply in such away that they can be applied (ie after the effect they require is also applicable).

Is can’t-vs-can really an MtG rule, when you have contradictions like “walls cannot attack” and “this card lets your walls attack”? Or is this just if a contradiction boils down to an equally-specific pair of “can” and “can’t” statements?

We’ve gone for a long time without a rule like this, and I think we’re just fine.  Rather than a sweeping generalization, deciding this on a case-by-case basis should suffice.

This is what CfJs were meant for.

S/K

The first time I tried to propose something like this, it was a dynastic over core one.  Strangely, everyone who voted asked for a core over dynastic rule.

@Kevan: M:tG has an explicit can’t-over-can rule, which is why the wording cards which override the other way is strange (“Walls can attack as if they weren’t walls.”)