Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Tue, 1 Sep 2009, comex wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Taral<tar...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 10:52 AM, comex<com...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Sep 1, 2009, at 12:58 PM, Roger Hicks <pidge...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> For the week of Aug 10-16 game custom dictates I should not be >>>>> penalized due to recently assuming the office. >>>> I disagree, half a week should be more than enough time. >>> Game custom is 7 days. Change it with a proposal. >> I don't think this game custom actually exists. >> >> but meh. > > There's a w/o objection-length standard for some responses, but > in ancient days (pre-2006) there was an actual rule that said "new > officers get 1 week before any late penalties apply". But I don't > think it has been made a precedent since that was repealed, and it > might be stretching to say that because it hasn't come up that > old rule is part of custom. Certainly, when an election finishes > just before a weekend that's also pretty close to a monthly deadline > I'd say that a judge excusing up to a week response time isn't > unreasonable (don't know if that's the case here, not following > details). > > -G.
I called a high-II criminal case covering this very issue but with a shorter period. The fact is that game custom doesn't take precedent over the rules; while I actually proposed reinserting such an exception as part of a larger rework of offices, that does not change the rule as it stands. It is a possible exception that the rule actually only binds someone who's held the office for the entire period of the duty, but other than that, there is no means by which failing to perform that duty is legal (and thinking you would be excused is not the same as thinking your action was legal, so the lack of knowledge of the crime does not apply). -coppro
