============================== CFJ 3346 ==============================
scshunt violated R2395 (Government Waste) by publishing the IADoP
Report on or about 23-Jun-13.
Called by G.: 23 Jun 2013 18:24:13 GMT
Assigned to omd: 23 Jun 2013 19:29:38 GMT
omd recused: 03 Jul 2013 22:15:52 GMT
Assigned to Walker: 08 Jul 2013 17:08:08 GMT
Walker recused: 15 Jul 2013 13:39:05 GMT
Assigned to lindar: 15 Jul 2013 17:46:30 GMT
Judged FALSE by lindar: 18 Jul 2013 12:21:21 GMT
First, it's clear at the moment that this is not a criminal matter, as
scshunt could not be reasonably aware that this is a rules violation, if
indeed it is so (R1504c).
Now, R2395 reads:
There exists an office of Governmental Waste. This office shall
have no duties, shall make no reports, and shall exist as the
sole result of governmental waste.
"Have no duties" simply states that no duties are added to someone
holding that office. Well and good. However "shall make no reports"
is obviously, either by SHALL or small-shall, a prohibition, not simply
a statement that this particular office has no report.
The prohibition does not qualify type the of report that is forbidden.
Furthermore, Rule 2143 clearly ties duties (and thus prohibitions) to
*persons* by virtue of holding an office, not to "the office" itself.
So you can't legally claim "wearing my GW hat, I make no Report, but
wearing my IDAoP hat, I make this report". That's simply ISID, and
also goes against the long-standing "no avatar" tradition of Agora.
Therefore, if a person holds the office of Governmental Waste and
makes an official report for another office, that person has violated
[I'm tempted to say that for someone who doesn't hold another office,
but holds GW, a "report" is generally anything said to the PF, but this
I should also say, if you look to the "intent" of rule R2395 (e.g. to
argue that the "intent" was simply that the GW office has no report),
you have to look at the "intent" of the whole legislative body. As
a minor point, I noticed the bug during the voting period and this
influenced my vote.
Gratuitous Arguments by omd:
The facts that (a) the entity that "shall make no reports"
is the office rather than the officer and (b) the other two shalls are
both prescriptive rather than obligatory strongly suggest to me that,
contrary to what the Caller considered "obvious", that clause is
merely a statement that the office does not have any reports.
Gratuitous Evidence by scshunt:
Note that "SHALL" is not capitalized.
Judge lindar's Arguments:
After reading the arguments and carefully (for about 5 minutes)
considering the situation, I have come to a verdict. The rule
specifically says "This office shall have no duties", not "This
officor shall have no duties" nor "This office SHALL have no duties",
which means to me that holding the office itself has no duties, not
that the officor specifically has no duties, and furthermore is not
explicit by convention of ALL CAPS to indicate what is mandatory.
However, we should carefully consider, as a community, whether or not
holding a position in the Office of Governmental Waste in addition to
another office, which actually requires effort, is more or less
wasteful than holding only a position in that office and no others,
thereby having more time to put effort into it, and not doing anything
with it. It is the opinion of this judge that the latter holds more
true than the former, and ey unofficially requests that the position
be filled by one who is much less qualified and who will actually get
nothing done full-time, in keeping with the spirit of the office.
My ruling on this CFJ is:
As an addendum, the judge does request that if it is community
consensus or the personal judgement of scshunt that results in em
resigning, the judge does also suggest writing a short letter of
apology to the Office of Governmental Waste for wasting so much of