The rule on officials currently explicitly states that “It is not illegal for an Official to fail to perform his duties; however, if an Official Position’s Duties are not fulfilled (either by the appropriate Officer, or by anyone else), any Sheep can cause that Official Position to become vacant, and the Sheep holding it to hold no Official Position, as long as they explain the way in which the Duties weren’t fulfilled in the comment to the GNDT update.” I’m happy with that, especially given the bribery-and-corruption mechanisms we’re currently developing.

The difference is subtle, but very important. The proposed change would take away some of the potential strategery.

Given the current wording, a banker would have the CHOICE of whether they distributed wages or not. Therefore, they could not be evicted from their office by failing to award wages. This proposed wording would give a greater clarification that, in order for duties to be considered “done” by a banker, wages MUST be awarded, and that it is not optional.

I admit I should have been slightly clearer in my purpose for proposing this rule to begin with. Apologies.

They have a duty to distribute wages, so they have a choice not to, but they certainly CAN be evicted if they choose not to perform their duty.

If this proposal DOES fail, I intend to pursue a Call For Judgement as to whether the Baanker is REQUIRED to award wages to be considered “active” in their position, or if it really is, as the current wording state, optional.

The wording is unambiguous. Refer to the Glossary in the Ruleset.

The CfJ would be extraneous as it would strictly replicate the results of this proposal.

Note also that the “Duties” line of the existing role description does contain the word “must”.

Perhaps additional wording should be added stating that this rule is still compliant with the Rules on Officials?

I am simply saying that in a semantical context, using the word “can” instead of “must, pursuant to Rules of Officials” might cause potential problems of others misunderstand. The current weak wording could be easily exploited.

The glossary explicitly states that “can” is defined as: “is able to”, not as “a requirement” or even “a duty”.

This would easily allow a Baanker to abrogate their duties without being considered lackadaisical, as the rule currently laid out would only say that Baankers are able to award Wages, but not that they could be considered unfulfilled in their obligations.

The wording “can” is specifically intentional, though. It’s not a mistake or weakness at all.

Josh: I just now noticed that the proposal says “must” after seeing your post. I completely didn’t see that.

My mistake here, gentlemen. Feel free to admin this proposal.

Axmann - no, the current “Duties” line explicitly states: “Duties: Must award Wages every week.” That is unambiguous! The rule refers to Officials not carrying out their duties, not using their powers, so it is also clear that it is this that the rule is referring to.  The use of the word “can” is only in the Powers section, and is thus irrelevant to the problem you’re trying to fix.

Ah, apologies for posting over you - your post wasn’t there when I started mine ^_^

Axmann: You can self-kill the proposal by voting against, but it can’t be adminned until the queue runs through.

This would do nothing

Per Josh

@Travis way to herd those admins :)

Per coppro.