I get that from a roleplay perspective it might be interesting to allow some level of corruption, however I think it has to be taken on balance with preservation of gameplay.
If we start allowing it without any checks then it's likely that nearly everyone will start doing it which then starts to break down the other mechanisms that already exist outside of the rules for preventing it. It is also likely that it won't be used to further any roleplay or anything else interesting but rather people will just do it to favour their friends or organisations which - as per the way NLR currently is - shouldn't really be the case, meaning that players who are not well known in the community or aren't in prominent organisations would very likely not benefit at all. In a way this could then potentially fall into the realm of 2.5.
If we were to have staff members perform checks or allow these things to take place it would congest and take away resource from dealing with rule breaks and other much needed administrative routines. There's also the question of where the threshold would be, what the requirements would be, what happens when someone takes it too far, et cetera. Then we would need to completely revisit how Internal Affairs, the Complaint Committee and PD punishments work. As it currently stands it can really hamper your progress in the PD if that is something you're interested in or even prevent you from playing PD at all, so a complete re-work would be needed to fit this in.
As such in the interests of preserving the balance of gameplay I think this is way too much hassle both in terms of its implementation and on-going monitoring for it to be considered good value for what little roleplay incentive or 'interesting' factor it brings.
