On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 9:15 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 7/24/24 00:13, 4st nomic wrote: > > Sure, but duty is not the term used in the deputisation rule. > > > What I'm calling the "duty" is the requirement to perform the action > referred to by paragraph 1 of R2160. > > -- > Janet Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > 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? -- 4ˢᵗ wearing Jester's Cap Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
