Call for Judgment: Nothing Actually Proposed
Timed out, 4-1. Enacted by JonathanDark.
Adminned at 08 Dec 2023 04:30:39 UTC
Remove the following pieces of existing business from https://blognomic.com/archive/tyngwall_december_10_2023
Baron Gregory proposes Endorsing the Prestigious Estate Claim by 7.
Baron Proudfoot proposes Endorsing the Positive Reputation Claim by 4.
When https://blognomic.com/archive/point_of_order2 was resolved, it merely stipulated Vovix’s comment was posted before midnight Saturday December 2 2023.
However, at the point in time Vovix’s comment was made, the rules still said “Two pieces of New Business that those non-Heir Parliamentarians will propose.”. This indicates that these were two pieces of new business that Gregory and Proudfoot will propose… at some point. But makes no indication that either of them actually proposed either piece of New Business.
As “The Existing Business of each Meeting of the Tyngwall is each item of New Business that was proposed to the previous meeting of the Tyngwall.”, and neither of those were actually proposed to the previous meeting of the Tyngwall but merely were suggested to be proposed, they should not be part of the new meeting’s list of existing business.
Per Kevan’s vote on 
. Not awake yet.
JonathanDark: he/him
Oh, I thought the CfJ retroactively turned the “will propose” into “proposed” for the existing Tyngwall agenda. I guess I misunderstood that.
Come to think of it, how can you tell, really? There’s no gamestate to suggest that the sentence “Baron Gregory proposes Endorsing the Prestigious Estate Claim by 7.” is “will propose” rather than “proposed”.
I’m not convinced that there’s an issue here.