coppro wrote:
> A player holds an office if e is that office's holder.
IMO this is sufficiently covered by R754(2).
> If an office incurs and obligation, then the officer SHOULD act to
> ensure that the office meets those obligations. If an office
> incurs a penalty as a result of violating its obligations, the
> holder of the office at the itme the violation was made shall
> instead receive the penalty, unless e has held that office for
> less than a week.
>
> [It's a SHOULD because the basic idea is that a player is
> responsible for the office's requirements; there is a 1-week
> leeway because a new officer may find that e has a lot of stuff
> to catch up on, and will need to establish eir own records.]
Couple of misspellings. Recommend replacing the whole thing with
something like:
An officer SHALL fulfill the duties of eir office. However, if e
violates this requirement within one week after coming to hold
the office, then DISCHARGE is the only appropriate sentence in a
criminal case pertaining to that violation.
e.g. if you inherit a one-off duty that's already three weeks overdue,
then you have one week before you can be dinged for your own failure
to perform it.
> Each rule-backed office has an interest index, tracked by the
> IADoP.
Are there any pros/cons to a contract-backed office having an II,
other than possibly aesthetics?
> Any player CAN, with N support, where N is at least the number of
> elections initiated by that player in that week, initiate an
> election for an elected office, provided that there is currently
> no ongoing election for that office. This defers to any rule
> allowing a player to initiate an election.
The last sentence is covered by the next-to-last paragraph of Rule 1728,
but the "provided" clause should probably have a precedence clause.
> 1) The valid options (hereafter the candidates) are PRESENT (syn.
> WITHHOLD or ABSTAIN) and the active players who, during the
> election,
"hereafter the candidates" should be after PRESENT. (I had the same
issue in the first version of my "allow PRESENT in elections to help
them meet quorum" proposal.)
> When an elected office's holder is something other than an active
> player, the IADoP CAN and SHALL initiate an election for that
> office. This obligation is fulfilled if, for any reason, there
> comes to be an ongoing election for that office or the office'
> holder becomes an active player.
Time limit? (I think we had a rule several years ago defining all time
limits as ASAP if not otherwise explicitly defined.)
