On Tue, 2024-07-23 at 21:36 -0700, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote: > So, "an action ordinarily reserved for an office-holder as if e held > the > office" > is duty. > > Items 1,2,3,5, by saying "the action", are actually referring to the > duty, > not to the action the deputy is taking? Because it says "the action" > which > I was interpreting to mean "the action that the deputy is hereby > authorized > to do". > > Like... to me, the "the" implies that there's only one action, and > because > the word "action" is shared between the starting paragraph and the > conditions, it made me think it was standalone... > > In the whole context of deputisation, this makes more sense, as in, > if any > duty is missed, then someone can deputise, but the way it is > currently > worded feels like... it doesn't actually work?
AIUI, there is only one action, you're not wrong there. Janet's position is that the action is "appointing a Laureled player to Speaker" and the requirement to do so isn't affected by the set of Laureled players changing before the requirement is fulfilled. My feeling is that that is the correct reading - Rule 103 says "Whenever the Prime Minister CAN appoint a Laureled player to the office of Speaker, e SHALL do so in a timely fashion", not "Whenever a player becomes Laureled, the Prime Minister SHALL appoint em to the office of Speaker in a timely fashion". And it definitely matches how we've always done it: if two people win in quick succession, the Speakership doesn't go to one first and then the other, it just goes to the most recent winner, and that discharges the Prime Minister's obligation. ~qenya
