The rules define official duty as "any duty..." but do not the word duty in
general.
Seems worthy of reconsideration as it misses this basic definition. The
definitition
of Duty (in dictionary) is something required to be performed, and once a shall
is satisfied, there is no requirement (ie no r2152 REQUIRED to fulfill ) and
therefore no duty.
On Thu, 3 Aug 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>
> On Aug 1, 2017, at 8:26 AM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2017-08-01 at 16:34 +1000, V.J Rada wrote:
> I CFJ on: "If V.J. Rada posted the following text contained in braces
> to a public forum {{I CoE my Reportor's report for no reason, accept
> it, publish the following report and claim 5 Shinies.
> Title: Newspaper
> ---Words---}}
> Agora would transfer em 5 Shinies."
>
>
> [Arbitor note: I've been trying to assign CFJs to obviously uninvolved
> judges, but o has been arguing on a lot of CFJs recently and therefore
> ended up behind in opportunities to judge, and so I'm in danger of
> failing to keep CFJ assignments balanced. E's only tangentially
> involved with this one, so this seems like the fairest place to assign
> em.]
>
>
> Thanks, I think. I hope my contributions to other CFJs have been helpful.
>
> This CFJ hinges on the question of whether a report qualifies as
> “duty-fulfilling,” for the purposes of the newly-enacted rule
> “Rewards.” V.J Rada is, conspicuously, attempting to claim a nominally-weekly
> reward twice within the same week, following the
> mechanism described in that rule:
>
> When a player 'claims' a Reward, Agora transfers the specified number
> of shinies to the player.
>
> Below is an exhaustive list of Reward Conditions and eir rewards:
>
>
> […]
>
> * Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 shinies.
>
>
> The term “duty-fulfilling” is not presently defined in the rules. The
> recently-repealed rule 2484 (“Payday”) also addressed the
> subject, however:
>
> Immediately afterward, for each duty-fulfilling report published last
> month (in chronological order of
> publication), Agora SHALL pay the publisher of the report the Report
> Rate for the office the report is associated
> with unless paying would leave Agora's balance at a negative value.
>
>
> Historical practice - from my own files, as it happens - while this rule was
> in effect was to pay an officer once for a
> sequence of revisions to the same report, not to pay the officer the office’s
> Report Rate for each revision; no CFJs were
> forthcoming and this appeared to be at least an acceptable piece of game
> convention. This appears to argue that the statement
> upon which I must judge is FALSE.
>
> The rules do, however, define “duty.” From rule 2143 (“Official Reports and
> Duties”):
>
> An official duty for an office is any duty that the Rules specifically
> assign to that office's holder in particular
> (regardless of eir identity).
>
>
> In the case before me, the duty in question is defined in rule 2446 (“The
> Agoran Newspaper”):
>
> The Reportor's weekly report includes:
>
> * A suitable name for a newspaper, at the Reportor's discretion.
>
>
> * A description of events that have happened since the last report that
> the Reportor believes significant or
> interesting.
>
>
> * Any editorialization or other pieces of Agora-related information the
> Reportor pleases, as long as it is neither
> i) factually incorrect nor ii) disrespectful to any person or Agora
> itself.
>
>
> The above-quoted document satisfies the form of this report, so it is
> possible for its publication to satisfy the duty of
> publishing the Reportor’s weekly report. We must again refer to r. 2143 to
> determine whether such a duty existed at the time
> V.J Rada published the report:
>
> If any task is defined by the rules as part of that person's weekly
> duties, then e SHALL perform it at least once
> each week. If any information is defined by the rules as part of that
> person's weekly report, then e SHALL maintain
> all such information, and the publication of all such information is
> part of eir weekly duties.
>
>
> The duty to publish a report is not suspended by the publication of a report,
> and indeed there appears to be no upper limit on
> how many “weekly reports” an officer may publish in a given Agoran week while
> satisfying a duty. This appears to argue that the
> statement upon which I must judge is TRUE.
>
> I reviewed a handful of relevant CFJs for further insight. CFJ 2361 appears
> to be the only CFJ even tangentially addressing
> this case, and it only addresses failure to act, not an excess of action. The
> Honourable ais523 found that a Note imposed as a
> consequence of failing to perform an Official Duty within the required time
> constituted a penalty. I recommend reviewing this
> CFJ, as there’s much to be found in it, but sadly, it does not clarify the
> question before me. This pattern repeats throughout
> the historical CFJs: dereliction of duty has been judged, but not
> over-performance.
>
> Considering the well-being of Agora as a whole, it appears unwise to permit
> officers to loot Agora’s coffers by flooding the
> public fora with trivial reports. However, I can find no compelling argument
> that would allow me to forbid it by judicial fiat.
>
> I find the statement
>
> If V.J. Rada posted the following text contained in braces
> to a public forum {{I CoE my Reportor's report for no reason, accept
>
> it, publish the following report and claim 5 Shinies.
>
> Title: Newspaper
>
> ---Words---}}
>
> Agora would transfer em 5 Shinies.
>
>
> to be TRUE.
>
> -o
>
>
>
