On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 3:31 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > > On 2/9/2020 3:01 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > > I strongly oppose this. In my view, inquiry cases should generally > > *not* be the officer making the initial interpretation, at least not > > preferentially. Inquiry cases are effectively the fallback appeal > > mechanism, and should remain a balanced system. I would rather see a > > separate path for administrative interpretations. > > Skeletal outline for simple memorandum: > > * A valid memorandum is considered "game custom" for the purposes of > interpreting law; > > * a memorandum is invalid only if a CFJ finds it is arbitrary and > capricious or reckless in its disregard for the rules text; > > * elected offices only; > > * a non-interim officeholder CAN issue a memorandum w/2 Agoran Consent; > > * valid memoranda are tracked with the officer's most frequent report; > > * when an new person is elected to an office, all previous memoranda for > that office become invalid; > > * during the nomination period of an election, a nominee can publish a > document listing memoranda for the office. If e is elected, those > memoranda become valid; They should really be regulations. -Aris > >
