I call the following 2 INQUIRY CFJs (requesting linked), barring scshunt:
- scshunt violated R2395 (Government Waste) by publishing the IADoP Report
on or about 23-Jun-13.
- If a player is required to make an officer's report, but also holds the
Office of Governmental Waste, resigning the office of Governmental Waste
is a reasonable way (as per R1504d) to avoid breaking Rule 2395.
Case 1 Arguments:
First, it's clear at the moment that this is not a criminal matter, as
scshunt could not be reasonably aware that this is a rules violation, if
indeed it is so (R1504c).
Now, R2395 reads:
There exists an office of Governmental Waste. This office shall
have no duties, shall make no reports, and shall exist as the
sole result of governmental waste.
"Have no duties" simply states that no duties are added to someone
holding that office. Well and good. However "shall make no reports"
is obviously, either by SHALL or small-shall, a prohibition, not simply
a statement that this particular office has no report.
The prohibition does not qualify type the of report that is forbidden.
Furthermore, Rule 2143 clearly ties duties (and thus prohibitions) to
*persons* by virtue of holding an office, not to "the office" itself.
So you can't legally claim "wearing my GW hat, I make no Report, but
wearing my IDAoP hat, I make this report". That's simply ISID, and
also goes against the long-standing "no avatar" tradition of Agora.
Therefore, if a person holds the office of Governmental Waste and
makes an official report for another office, that person has violated
R2395.
[I'm tempted to say that for someone who doesn't hold another office,
but holds GW, a "report" is generally anything said to the PF, but this
violates R101].
I should also say, if you look to the "intent" of rule R2395 (e.g. to
argue that the "intent" was simply that the GW office has no report),
you have to look at the "intent" of the whole legislative body. As
a minor point, I noticed the bug during the voting period and this
influenced my vote.
Case 2 Arguments:
First, this case is wholly IRRELEVANT if the previous case is FALSE.
It's been found previously, *in general*, that if an Officer is found
in a nest of conflicting duties, that it's not reasonable (in an R1504d
sense) to ask em to resign to avoid the breaches, as it is better for
the game that officers not be forced to resign.
However, in this case, a person holding the Governmental Waste office
while holding another non-wasteful office is violating the entire
raison d'être of Governmental Waste in the first place, so it's only
reasonable that the solution be to resign.
