Whenever the prime minister CAN [...], e SHALL do so [...]. (Hopefully I didn't misquote, but) does some part of the [...] portions change that an obligation is created each time the conditions are fulfilled?
IMO, there are many outstanding appointments to speaker. We've just automatically forgiven and not reported the other impossible obligations thus far, because there's only ever one laureled player. I guess that doesn't really change that the ability has expired, so Mischief was appointed when snail should have been appointed. However, it also means that I could still deputize for a different unresolved obligation to appoint Mischief to speaker. (I'm tempted to, but it would be moot bc there would always be another obligation) -- 4st putting jesters cap back on, it fell off while mobile On Wed, Jul 24, 2024, 1:30 AM Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > 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 >
