On 4/18/23 13:16, nix via agora-discussion wrote: > Title: Delegation > AI: 3 > Author: nix > Co-Author(s): > > [This proposal adds Vacations and Delegation, which encourage officers > to take time off and give the responsibility to someone else for a > while. Not only is this intended to reduce burnout for officers, but it > is also intended to be an opportunity for other players to learn an > office without fully committing to it.] > > Amend R2438 by replacing "Cyan (C): When a person deputises for an > office" with "Cyan (C): When a person deputises for an office or is > delegated an office" > > Enact a new Power=3 rule titled "Vacations & Delegation" with the > following text: > > An officer CAN and SHOULD take a Vacation from a specified office e > has continuously held for over 6 months with 14 day notice, if e has > not done so in the last year. When e does so, e can optionally > specify a player to be eir Delegate.
Actions with 14 days notice are impossible to perform, because the resolution of the intent would have to come both after 14 days and within 14 days of the intent being announced. > An officer is On Vacation from a specified office if e has taken a > Vacation from that office in the last 30 days. > > If an officer specified a Delegate when taking a Vacation, and the > Delegate has publicly consented, then the Delegate can act as if e > is the holder of the Office while the officer is On Vacation. Should this be tracked somewhere (e.g. ADoP report)? Delegate should probably be a switch. > If a SHALL NOT or SHALL related to an Office is violated while an > Officer is on Vacation and e has specified a Delegate who has > consented, the Delegate is treated as the person that violated the > SHALL or SHALL NOT. If e has not specified a Delegate who has > consented, nobody is considered to have violated the SHALL or SHALL > NOT. > "Rules the the contrary notwithstanding, a delegate SHALL comply with all duties of an office as if e held the office while the officer is On Vacation, and officer NEED NOT comply with any duties of that office." Come to think of it, deputisation probably also needs a RttCN clause. Also, we have an officer SHALL in Rule 2141, which this (and deputisation) would be unable to override. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
