- Joined
- Aug 18, 2024
- Messages
- 331
State Rule 1.1 – All staff members are required to comply with established standards.
According to the Public Servants Governance Act (8th Rendition):
Article §6.1:
"All employees of a state organization are prohibited from having tattoos or paint on their hands or face. Exceptions may occur only for specific undercover work with written approval from the organization's leader."
Player 40855 is visibly using full-hand tattoos while serving in a state organization. Under Article §6.1, such tattoos are prohibited unless the employee has prior written approval from the organization's leader for undercover purposes.
Proof: .
Based on the available information, there is no evidence that such written approval existed at the time of the reported violation. If approval is obtained only after this report has been submitted, it should not be treated as evidence of compliance at the time of the incident, as retroactive approval would not negate a prior violation of the legislation.
Additionally, I request that this complaint be locked for the LSPD Curator after the relevant responses have been provided, as any verification regarding written approval (if it exists) falls within the curator's authority and can be confirmed directly by them.
According to the Public Servants Governance Act (8th Rendition):
Article §6.1:
"All employees of a state organization are prohibited from having tattoos or paint on their hands or face. Exceptions may occur only for specific undercover work with written approval from the organization's leader."
Player 40855 is visibly using full-hand tattoos while serving in a state organization. Under Article §6.1, such tattoos are prohibited unless the employee has prior written approval from the organization's leader for undercover purposes.
Proof: .
Based on the available information, there is no evidence that such written approval existed at the time of the reported violation. If approval is obtained only after this report has been submitted, it should not be treated as evidence of compliance at the time of the incident, as retroactive approval would not negate a prior violation of the legislation.
Additionally, I request that this complaint be locked for the LSPD Curator after the relevant responses have been provided, as any verification regarding written approval (if it exists) falls within the curator's authority and can be confirmed directly by them.
