Proposal: Order of precedence [Appendix]
passes 5-0. DK
Adminned at 23 Feb 2020 06:48:29 UTC
Amend the rule “Prioritisation” as follows:
* If two parts of the Ruleset contradict each other, precedence shall be construed in the following order:
# The Appendix has precedence over any other Rule;
# A Dynastic Rule has precedence over a Core Rule, unless that Core Rule explicitly says it can’t be overruled by a Dynastic Rule;
# 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;
# If two contradicting parts have equal precedence, the part with more limited scope applies (e.g. if the rules “Individuals may Kick each other” and “Individuals may not Kick each other on Tuesdays” exist, and it is Tuesday, Individuals may not Kick each other);
# If two contradicting parts have the same scope, the negative rule applies (e.g. with “Individuals may Punch a Spaceman on Friday” and “Individuals may not Punch Spacemen on Friday”, then Individuals may not Punch Spacemen on Friday).
Not necessarily the kind of proposal we need right now, but I’m on my phone and I had this ready in my sandbox.
Cosmetic changes aside, I’m proposing to cover certain cases left out of the current rule, by widening #4 to take in any pair of provisions in the same Section of the Ruleset, or a pair consisting of a Dynastic rule and a Special Case rule. (This proposal’s #4 is the current rule’s #3, which I’m proposing to change by moving up current #5; this would allow the list to be read as an actual order. Special Case rules seem to be mentioned last only because they were a later addition to the rule.)
Because this doesn’t really change anything, so why not.
Darknight: he/him