It would be even awesomer if it said “Italicized text is not considered part of the ruleset and may be used to clarify rules with examples, notes and flavor text.”

I think the italicized “Italicized text” may be another obvious typographical mistake that can be corrected by an Admin at any time.

That’s a dangerous line of thinking

I think an overzealous admin caused that paradox to begin with. The original glossary change did not have the formatting.

At least they didn’t make it say “Italicized text is not considered part of the ruleset and may be used to clarify rules with examples, notes and flavor text.”

because that would have destroyed the game.

Hmmm….  I think law 10 prevents modification of spelling/typographical mistakes in the laws or glossary.  Is that right?  Usually, an “X is forbidden” instruction has priority over an instruction which allows X, because there is an implicit exception being made.

Also, I’ve been wondering: under the current rule system, if an inclination explicitly stated that it was an exception to a certain impulse (or instinct), what would happen?  Does that count as a conflict, thus implying that the impulse has priority?  Or does the exception make it so that there is no conflict, and the inclination will have its intended effect (including the exception)?

peter suber strikes again

I forsee Calls for Judgment.