On 3/1/2020 7:54 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion wrote: > 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.
It means that someone tried it (I wasn't the first I don't think) and there was some discussion and everyone involved agreed it worked and no-one offered any counterarguments worthy of a CFJ. And it was tried a time or two after that before CFJ 3688 with same results. I'll see if I can find the first time it happened (2017-ish IIRC) but if someone has a cogent CFJ that can always overrule. -G.
