“this rule supersedes any provision set out in rule 1.5”
ninja
Back when I left, referring to rules by number was frowned upon, since rule numbers were not defined by the ruleset. Has it been fixed?

(it shouldn’t be a big issue since Dynastic rules have still precedence over Core)
/ninja

Rule numbers show up in the table of contents, so it should still work.

I think what Ely is referring to is the scam I and an admin friend pulled in the Eight Dynasty of Kevan, where we added a new rule to the start of the dynastic rules to throw off the numbering and thus cause a proposal to amend the wrong rule. (Before then, there’d long been a rule that said you can’t refer to rules by number specifically to stop that scam happening, but it had been repealed because people couldn’t see why it was necessary.)

Nowadays, the numbering can only be thrown off if a rule is outright repealed. This happens sufficiently rarely (except in the middle of a dynasty) that people tend to get complacent and use rule numbers (although I’m still careful to use names, just to make sure).

Yep, that was the one.
Well, game on then. :)

Err, I meant sufficiently rarely (except between dynasties), and the reason is that there’s a new rule that forces rules to be added in proper sequence.