==============================  CFJ 2512  ==============================

    If there were no rules of power greater than 3, it would be POSSIBLE
    to enact a power-3 rule reading in part {This rule takes precedence
    over all other rules with which it conflicts.}


Caller:                                 scshunt

Judge:                                  Wooble
Judgement:                              TRUE



Called by scshunt:                      07 May 2009 00:08:59 GMT
Assigned to Wooble:                     08 May 2009 06:12:13 GMT
Judged TRUE by Wooble:                  13 May 2009 02:41:21 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

I each case, it is possible that Rule 1482 makes the supposed changes
impossible. Depending on whether 1482 applies based on the current state
of the ruleset or the potential state of the ruleset, the answers may
well be different. If the judge wishes me to explain in more detail, e's
free to ask; but I'm having a hard time getting it down right now, so
I'll defer explanation.

I think the answers are FALSE to all but the second, which is TRUE.


Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

When talking about what is possible by changing the rules anything can
change.  These should all be TRUE, as it is possible to remove the
blocking section of R1482 (removing it would not in itself change
precedence so it doesn't block its own removal) and then enact any of
these within the same proposal.


Gratuitous Arguments by scshunt:

The possibility or illegality of an action cannot take into
consideration the ability to change the rules or else all such inquiries
would be TRUE - it is referring just to the ability to do that precise


Judge Wooble's Arguments:

I'm going to accept Goethe's argument here; when talking about the
possibility of enacting a rule change, the very nature of nomic is
that any arbitrary rule change is POSSIBLE, though it may take some
amount of ingenuity to get around blocks in the rules.

While Agora Is A Nomic came too late to block the second paragraph of
R1482 from taking effect, its wording sets the standard by which we
should consider the possibility of a rule change.

I judge TRUE on both CFJ 2511 and 2512.

(Note: had I rejected Goethe's argument, I'd judge these both
UNDETERMINED; "reading in part" is excessively vague.  The rest of the
rule could, for example, invalidate the claim of precedence