Fiks wrote:I had thought that the system already worked as Collin proposed, but a quick review of the corpora notes that an officer of WM must be a voting member in a core land. So as soon as a land loses its Core status, it could be interpreted that the officer would immediately lose their voting membership status and thus be ineligible to be an officer of WM.
With this in mind, let me ask thus: if I'm, say, Regent of WM, and I let my dues paid status expire, does that mean I lose my position immediately? Similar situation, I feel, and how we typically handle the dues paid expiring situation should inform how we should handle an officer coming from a land that loses its Core status during their term.
The answer to the first is part is why old corporas made officers dues exempt during their reign, that way they could continue to govern. They had to be dues paid to be elected, though.
Honestly, the easy answer is that we shouldn't elect the type of person who is going to flake on paying $10 during the reign. I'm all for legislating for the least common denominator, but I don't know that we need to do so in this case. Social stigma is a powerful force in this game when it comes to leadership. It seems to do a decent job of keeping our officers honest. Or, conversely, of keeping dishonest officers from getting elected.