============================  Appeal 2674a  ============================


Panelist:                               ais523
Decision:                               REMAND


Panelist:                               omd
Decision:                               REMAND


Panelist:                               Murphy
Decision:                               REMAND


Panelist:                               ə
Decision:                               REMAND


Panelist:                               Walker
Decision:                               REMAND

========================================================================

History:

Appeal initiated:                       09 Sep 2009 16:55:27 GMT
Assigned to ais523 (panelist):          23 Sep 2009 22:15:07 GMT
Assigned to omd (panelist):             23 Sep 2009 22:15:07 GMT
Assigned to Murphy (panelist):          23 Sep 2009 22:15:07 GMT
Assigned to ə (panelist):               23 Sep 2009 22:15:07 GMT
Assigned to Walker (panelist):          23 Sep 2009 22:15:07 GMT
Walker moves to REMAND:                 24 Sep 2009 18:45:25 GMT
ais523 moves to REMAND:                 27 Sep 2009 20:58:17 GMT
omd moves to REMAND:                    13 Oct 2009 00:17:00 GMT
Murphy moves to REMAND:                 13 Oct 2009 00:17:00 GMT
ə moves to REMAND:                      13 Oct 2009 00:17:00 GMT
Final decision (REMAND):                13 Oct 2009 00:17:00 GMT

========================================================================

Gratuitous Arguments by Pavitra:

perhaps the ASAP period should be held to include the time
in which e was a candidate in the election, and the time limit after
actual assignment be only Without-Objection long (four days).

New officers can begin preparing their reports before they're actually
elected; in recent history, sample copies of those reports have been
major elements of the campaign platform. The grace period after election
then applies only to awareness that one has been elected.

========================================================================

Panelist ais523's Arguments:

I opine REMAND on every appeal case I can (for the obvious corrections
to avoid dinging the judge, and for the BobTHJ cases so that the judge
can take eir comments into account if e wishes; I think re-judging the
same judgement in the BobTHJ cases would be fine, but recent arguments
should probably be addressed).

========================================================================

Gratuitous Arguments by woggle:

[doesn't cause the panel to act because it doesn't match any
panelist's opinion]

In the appeal of culpability in CFJ 2674, I hereby publish a Justiciar's
opinion of AFFIRM.

Although it has been historically rare for punishment to be given to an
officer who has recently started their duties, historically officers
have not been rewarded for holding their office for these periods. The
rules performed this by making awards at the end of a time period
dependent on having held the office for most of that period and by
denying the reward unconditionally when duties were not performed. This,
and the relative ease (albeit with slowness) of initiating elections,
largely made punishment for failure to produce reports seem irrelevant
in this past and probably explains BobTHJ's impression that Agora had a
custom of not punishing officers for not reporting in their first week.

As previously noted, BobTHJ had plenty of notice that e was going to be
Herald given the ongoing election in which e was the only candidate
which was also not resolved very close to the Herald's report deadline.

The current card rules do not do this:
R2258/3:
 At the beginning of each
      week, each holder of an office earns a number of draws from the
      deck indicated by the switch equal to the interest index for
      that office.

But historically, such denial reward as been commonplace:
R2126/1: (most of month)
      At the end of each quarter, for each office, the player (if
      any) who held that office for the majority of that quarter
      gains one VC.
R2126/5: (most of month + did not poorly perform)
      At the end of each month, for each office, the player (if any)
      who held that office for the majority of that month gains two
      VCs, unless the Speaker publicly announces that the officer has
      performed poorly in eir duties.
R2126/15: (most of month + performed + did not poorly perform)
      b) At the end of each month, for each office with a report, the
         player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that
         month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a weekly report)
         or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly report), unless the
         Speaker announces within a week after the end of that month
         that that player performed that office's duties poorly or not
         at all.
Under (non-pragmatized) ribbons:
R2126/49:
      (+G) At the end of each month, each player who held at least one
           office continuously during that month gains a Green Ribbon,
           unless e violated a requirement to submit a report within a
           time limit.
Under notes:
R2126/50:
      (2) (E)  At the end of each week, each player who published at
               least one weekly report during that week gains an E
               Note.

========================================================================

Panelist omd's Arguments:

[no opinion given]

========================================================================

Panelist Murphy's Arguments:

[opinion given as CotC]

========================================================================