Warning! This CFJ contains Injunctions! ====================================================================== CFJ 1061 Rule 1585 should be interpreted such that a Player who is newly installed into an Office does not commit the Infraction of Failure to Report (insofar as that Office is subject to such duties) if e posts the required Report within a week of eir being installed into Office. ====================================================================== Judge: Steve Judgement: TRUE Eligible: Andre, Calabresi, ChrisM, Chuck, Crito, elJefe, General Chaos, Harlequin, Kolja A., Michael, Murphy, Oerjan, Steve, Vir, Vlad Not eligible: Caller: Morendil (not a player) Barred: On request: Vanyel On hold: Relevant Rules : 1585, 1686 Injunctions: See below ====================================================================== History: Called by Morendil, 29 Oct 1997 17:11:54 +0100 Assigned to Steve, 30 Oct 1997 14:49:06 +0100 (MET) Judged TRUE by Steve, 2 Nov 1997 14:10:44 +1100 (EST) ====================================================================== (Caller's) Arguments: Rule 1686 designates the Infraction of Failure to Report as the "failure to post the Official Report", an action that the same Rule requires the Officer to perform "at least once every Nomic Week". Thus, at the beginning of a Nomic Week, the current holder of an Office immediately incurs this obligation, which is only lifted when the report is published. When a new Officer is installed in that same Office (assuming that the Officer is a different Player), that duty becomes attached to the new Officer; further, Rule 1585 dictates that the timing requirements under which that duty must be fulfilled become those of ASAP. Rule 1585 at Power 2 takes precedence over 1686, which conflicts with it in attempting to impose a different timing requirement ("at least once a week"). It is the *holder* of an Office that is the target of the Infraction, not the "Office as a whole" as Kolja quaintly puts it. I would argue that if the obligation pertains to the Office rather than the Player, the Infraction should be incurred by the Office too. ;) I ask that the Judge issue an Injunction to Annotate Rule 1585 with the attached Statement and list of Relevant Rules. ====================================================================== Decision & Reasoning Judge: In the matter of CFJ 1061, I judge that the Statement is TRUE. The Caller's arguments are persuasive. I believe it was Crito who suggested that the Statement might be trivially false because a Player newly installed into Office might violate ASAP by posting eir Report out of order, even though within the week. But Morendil's rebuttal is incisive: in that case, the Player would be guilty of Tardiness, but not of Failure to Report. ====================================================================== Injunctions: Firstly, I hereby grant Morendil's request for an Injunction to Annotate, and enjoin the Rulekeepor to Annotate R1585 with the Statement and the list of Relevant Rules. Secondly, and as required by R1504, I hereby issue an Injunction enjoining the Clerk of the Courts to vacate the Payment Orders, executed by then- Registrar Zefram in his 'Salary Report 1997-W43', penalizing Kolja and Steve for Failure to Report. ====================================================================== Evidence: Rule 1585/1 (Power=2) Official Duties upon Officer Change Whenever the holder of an Office changes, any duties which the Rules had imposed upon the prior holder of that Office as a consequence of holding that Office which have not been fulfilled must instead be fulfilled by the new holder of that Office, as soon as possible after the change of Officer occurs and in the same order in which the prior holder of that Office had been required to fulfill them. The former holder of the Office is absolved of performing all such duties, any Rule to the contrary notwithstanding. ======================================================================