========================= Criminal Case 2405 =========================
Taral violated the power-2 rule 2234 by not awarding me points as
contestmaster of Enigma as soon as possible after the beginning of
Judgement: NOT GUILTY
Called by ais523: 09 Mar 2009 17:21:17 GMT
Defendant Taral informed: 09 Mar 2009 17:21:17 GMT
Assigned to ehird: 12 Mar 2009 23:07:47 GMT
ehird recused: 25 Mar 2009 02:46:00 GMT
Assigned to OscarMeyr: 25 Mar 2009 02:46:50 GMT
OscarMeyr recused: 27 Mar 2009 01:48:09 GMT
Assigned to omd: 28 Mar 2009 16:05:46 GMT
Judged NOT GUILTY by omd: 28 Mar 2009 18:19:51 GMT
On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 09:47 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Mar 2009, Alexander Smith wrote:\
> > Taral wrote:
> >> I award 20 points to Murphy as contestmaster of the FRC.
> >> The AAA is no longer a contest. The reading of the rule is a bit
> >> strange here, but I'm going to say Wooble doesn't care. No points.
> >> I'm going to exercise a bit of prerogative with the other two. I
> >> didn't see any substantive activity, so no awards. 50 points for
> >> waiting for a rule change is not cool.
> > I NoV against Taral for violating the power-2 rule 2234 by not awarding
> > me points as contestmaster of Enigma as soon as possible after the
> > beginning of March. Being late is OK, but not doing it at all?
> > I intend to deputise for the Scorekeepor to award me points for
> > contestmastering Enigma in February.
> > I again state for the record that Enigma was designed for its contestants
> > to submit puzzles; the contestmaster has no incentive for doing so.
> > Nevertheless, I will submit a few as a public service (and to get the
> > Champion's Contests thing going) in the near future. I note in passing
> > that by submitting three or so puzzles, Taral could easily have got more
> > than the 50 points in question emself...
> I contest the above NoV. (Inactivity is inactivity; if the contestmaster
> not promote, and no puzzles are submitted, e has little work to do, so
> deserve points for eir labors).
> I CFJ on the following statement: If the scorekeepor announces that
> a contestmaster is not to be awarded points for a particular month as e
> did not perform duties for the contest, then the scorekeepor has performed
> all duties required by Rule 2234 with respect to that contest.
> I bar ais523.
> Rule 2234 contains a subjective condition for reward (whether or not
> a contestmaster has performed contest-related duties in a timely manner)
> and leaves the awarding as a duty for the scorekeepor. The scorekeepor
> should have some reasonable discretion as to whether a contests' duties
> have been performed; if a particular scorekeepor feels they have not, that
> decision, prima facie, should be respected by the courts, and the proper
> redress for abuse should be electing a new scorekeepor. If the courts
> allow deputisation to override an officers' permitted subjective
> decision prior to court review (but after the officer announces a decision),
> we would invite abuse where players could override any such subjective
> decision no matter how reasonable.
Arguments: Whether contest-related duties have been performed in a
timely manner is objective, if the text of the contract is accessible. I
have been publishing a null string as required by the contract every
week (cunningly disguised amongst other messages, I'll make it more
explicit if people want), due to having been sent no puzzles. (If you
like, I'll make it explicit from now on when there are no puzzles in a
I note in passing that Brainfuck Joust currently imposes no obligations
on its contestmaster at all, and gives no way for other contestants to
impose such obligations. In contrast, anybody could have created an
obligation for me with respect to Enigma by submitting a puzzle; the
fact that nobody did shouldn't cause me to suddenly count as derelicting
my duties. (Likewise, the AAA sometimes has had off weeks where nobody
has performed an action that required AAA-recordkeeping, as did the
I agree that in the rare cases that the rules allow a subjective
decision (which IMO is probably a bad idea for core-rules things, which
should either require an objective decision or else allow any decision
at all even if blatantly wrong, to avoid this sort of argument), that
deputisation to overrule it should fail. In the case of a Scorekeepor
blatantly derelicting eir duties to award points based on an objective
fact, though, should this happen? (As a comparison, I don't think the
Conductor could have legally withheld Notes from the Grand Poobah if e
didn't like the way in which e adjusted Castes, so long as e complied
with eir duties.)
Oh, and I initiate a criminal CFJ on the above-quoted NoV, barring
Goethe. I submit this message (including the thread quoted at the top of
it) as gratuitous arguments on that CFJ.
There's another unrelated point to consider here, which might be invoked
in this situation (which is almost certainly a scam and/or bug that
needs fixing, but still needs CfJing on). I call for judgement on the
statement "If an officer violates a time limit to perform a required
action, then another player CAN perform that action as if e held that
office via deputisation even if the officer in question performed the
action after the time limit expired but before the deputisation, as long
as it would be possible (but not necessarily mandatory) for the officer
to perform the action in question a second time."
Arguments on that CfJ: Rule 2160 appears to explicitly allow this;
probably that's a bug. (The only part of Rule 2160 which appears to have
a chance of preventing that is the "rules require" in part a, and that's
Gratuitous Arguments by G.:
The text of Rule 2234 is "performed duties related to the contest in a timely
manner". There are two ways to read this. The first (which ais523 argues
for) is that "if the contest currently mandates no duties, then the
contestmaster performs them by doing nothing." What I argue for is the
interpretation "If no or negligible duties have been performed, then the
contestmaster has not in fact performed duties, as performing an empty set of
duties is the same as not performing duties, even if that empty set is in
keeping with the contract text".
Why do I argue that "neglibible" duties as being the same (or suitably close)
to no duties for these purposes? Negligible with respect to what?
Contests are contracts, which have a set of anticipated duties contained
within the text. Based on these anticipated duties, players grant contest
status to contracts. If the contest becomes inactive relative to these
anticipated duties, the contract is not proceeding as envisioned, and
duties are not being performed "as anticipated by the contest" in the sense
of Equity. The text of Rule 2234 is "performed duties related to the
contest in a timely manner", and if those duties are suitably negligible
relative to what the contest "envisioned" duties to be (when, for example,
it became a contest or its text was last changed w/o 3 objections), the
anticipated duties are not being performed, and the scorekeepor is
correct and within eir duties and abilities to make this call.
Judge omd's Arguments:
The Enigma contract reads:
9) As soon as possible after the end of each week, the contestmaster
SHALL publish a list of all puzzles submitted during that week.
Publishing an empty list is different from publishing the null string.
In particular, the contestmaster should have explicitly mentioned
that no puzzles had been submitted during that week. ais523 violated
that requirement, and Taral was correct to award em no points. NOT