User blog:Nichdel/CFJ: Borked Precedence?

I submit for CFJ the following statement: "Rules claiming exceptional precedence over other rules is ineffectual."

Arguments:

8 naturally has lower precedence than 4 and 5. 8 claims to have precedence over 4 and 5. There's no mechanism that allows a rule to move itself up in precedence. In fact, the only rule that we have that clearly defines precedence relations is 7. 7 says "The lower a rule's number, the higher its precedence (101 > 102)." 7 has higher precedence than 8, by its own rule. Interpreting 7 to be correct means 8 is lower precedence than 4 and 5.