BobTHJ wrote: > Just to look at the big picture here, it seems rather unethical to > penalize officers for infractions such as these. I think back to > coppro's term as Grand Poobah - e was never able to publish a single > correct report (most contained 5+ errors), e failed to make some deals > on time, and on more than one occasion failed to correct problems when > they were brought to eir attention. For a while I kept count of > infractions, but decided to quit counting somewhere around 35. I could > have issued NoVs (using a similar zooping contract) and still could > (using this contract even) but have chosen not to. coppro was > attempting to provide a service to Agora by recordkeeping - a > difficult job requiring a large time investment. Calling repeated NoVs > would have been disgraceful when CoEs and friendly reminders would > suffice. > > Note that I'm not advocating removing penalties for mis-performing or > non-performing officers. They need to be retained for cases of gross > negligence in repeatedly ignoring duties even after becoming aware of > the issue. However, simply because a method exists to penalize an > officer does not mean it should be used.
Note that officers making good-faith errors can still argue NOT GUILTY (even with the raised bar from believe-it's-true to is-true) because they were unaware of the errors beforehand, thus not reasonably able to avoid them. If a given report proves regularly error-prone due to complexity, then it may warrant a boilerplate general disclaimer.
