Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > I thought about that possibility, because R2160 includes this > provision, which seems to prevent any deputisation where other rules > of any power prohibit the same action from the officeholder: > 2. it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action, > other than by deputisation, if e held the office; > That is why I included the second portion from R103, which sets the > limitations on R2472. For this reason, I think it really comes down to > two questions: (1) how the second list item in R2160 is interpreted > with regards to lower-powered restrictions, and (2) how the exception > to R2160 in R103 is interpreted with regards to your message.
Hmm, this does sound plausible. The most recent precedent is CFJ 3688, in which G. wrote: > I accept the Caller's arguments that e was Prime Minister at the time of > eir attempted action, and thus generally able to issue Cabinet Orders, as > there is game consensus and past practice that implies that e became PM > successfully. (https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg33078.html) Unfortunately, I don't know what "game consensus and past practice" e was referring to, and e didn't cite any other CFJs by number. So we may need eir help to figure it out. Disturbingly, if it failed, then CuddleBeam is still Speaker and couldn't become a PM candidate! I may need to do the whole set of actions over again, this time without deputisation, in order to bring about convergence... -twg
