Hmm, I thought we already had a clause that covered this, but I can’t see it. But obscure edge cases should go in the glossary, not the core rules. And this wording endorses scams involving s future proposal (propose “enact proposal called X but without the subrule” in reference to a recent failed proposal, then, after some votes of support, propose “X” again as a new I-win proposal with a null subrule).

gah i messed up the wording. guess i’ll try for a glossary version later. i meant for proposals already in the queue to not be able interact with proposals added after them. the obvious case being something like what Kevan talks about, which can still happen under the current rules.