Index ← 2022 CFJ 2023 2024 → text
=========================  Criminal Case 2023  =========================

    root broke rule 1742 by failing to act in accordance with the
    Brainfuck Golf contract.


Caller:                                 ais523
Barred:                                 root

Judge:                                  Machiavelli

Judge:                                  OscarMeyr
Judgement:                              INNOCENT



Called by ais523:                       20 Jun 2008 08:15:51 GMT
Pre-trial phase ended:                  20 Jun 2008 15:25:12 GMT
Defendant root informed:                21 Jun 2008 05:47:23 GMT
Assigned to Machiavelli:                21 Jun 2008 06:05:40 GMT
Machiavelli recused:                    12 Jul 2008 15:29:24 GMT
Assigned to OscarMeyr:                  12 Jul 2008 15:50:20 GMT
Judged INNOCENT by OscarMeyr:           20 Jul 2008 14:14:56 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

This is a bit of a tricky situation, really. If the contract said "root SHALL
be contractmaster of this contract" there would be no issue that root was
breaking the contract (of which e is a member, according to my records) by
not being contestmaster of it. (E has not been contestmaster of it for some
time, actually, but I only just noticed that paragraph in the contract when
updating my Notary records for it.) However, the contract is more ambiguous
in this regard, so it is possible that the wording used does not force root
to be contestmaster of it.


Caller's Evidence:

The Brainfuck Golf contract, reads, in part:
11) The contestmaster shall be root.


Gratuitous Arguments by root:

I was contestmaster of the Brainfuck Golf contract the entire time
that I was party to it, save the first four days or so that it took to
make it a contest in the first place.  I only ceased to be
contestmaster when I ceased to be party to the contract, at which
point I could categorically could not violate it per CFJ 1686.


Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:

You were marked as party to Brainfuck Golf in the last two Notary
reports. I've looked through history, and found the message archived at

which shows you leaving back in February, before either report. (However,
the message had a subject starting DIS:, which is misleading, to say the
least, as it appears to have been sent to a public forum.)

Rule 2178 says:
Changes in the text or membership of a public contract do not
become effective until they are published.

It's not clear to me whether this particular change was ever published
(or counted as published); at least, two reports that contradicted it
have been published since, and no claims of error were made against that
particular part of the report. (I repeated the previous Notary's
information that root was party to Brainfuck Golf, because root's
membership status in Brainfuck Golf had not changed since it, and that
claim was never challenged.) root published a message stating that they
were leaving. (However, I note that publishing the new membership of a
public contract after it changes seems not to be common practice.)

Also worthy of consideration is whether the contract made it illegal for
root to leave it, because doing so would cause em to cease to be
contestmaster of it, and also whether root ever did cease to be
contestmaster of it (rule 2136 does not state that a contestmaster has
to be a member of the contest, only that a player cannot become the
contestmaster of a contest they are not a member of). This could produce
interesting knock-on effects if root never did leave; good thing that
points are self-ratifying!

Anyway, after all that, root is probably INNOCENT, but I'd like to see
all the points in these arguments considered because there are deeper
rules questions at stake here.


Judge OscarMeyr's Arguments:

ais523 has pointed out an interesting hole in R2136, that a
contestmaster does not have to remain a member of the contest.
Accordingly, root's as contestmaster of Brainfuck Golf did not depend
on eir being a member of the contest.  Therefore, root did not
violate provision 11 of the contest, nor R1742.  As the alleged
action of violating R1742 did not occur, I rule INNOCENT.