Index ← 2447 CFJ 2448 2449 → text
==============================  CFJ 2448  ==============================

    Puzzles submitted by Enigma's contestmaster to emself count as
    puzzles within the definitions given by Enigma.


Caller:                                 ais523

Judge:                                  scshunt
Judgement:                              TRUE



Called by ais523:                       14 Apr 2009 21:43:47 GMT
Assigned to scshunt:                    15 Apr 2009 05:11:26 GMT
Judged TRUE by scshunt:                 15 Apr 2009 22:10:46 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

I've been acting as if I count as a contestant in the contest I run for
the past several months; CFJ 2438 found that I don't, for the definition
of "contestant" in the rules, but I'm wondering if the definition in the
contract is different. I've certainly interpreted it as including
myself; if not, none of the Enigma puzzles I've submitted actually
counted, and so much (although not all) of the contest's work never
happened (although the point awards that resulted from it did, due to
being pragmatised). Game custom also implies that the contestmaster
counts as a contestant in eir own contest; I even came under pretty
heavy fire recently due to failing to submit puzzles in Enigma, when
nothing forced me to! (Nobody thought that there was anything wrong with
me submitting puzzles for it at the time...)

Many contracts have a definition naming their parties (like the PBA,
which has Comrades); Enigma does not explicitly define "contestant", but
until recently I assumed it meant "party to this contest", based on the
common need for a contract to refer to itself. The inability of the
contestmaster to submit puzzles would be rather detrimental to the
contest itself, too; and I can't legally amend it during the Champion's
Contest without the contest's status being lost, likely annoying a lot
of people. I'm not at all convinced it would be in the best interests of
the game, therefore, for uses of "contestant" inside Enigma to exclude
the contestmaster, even though uses of the same word within the rules
apparently do. Also, Enigma is written so as to give the contestmaster a
lot of leeway in interpreting it, although it does not specifically
grant them the ability to interpret the whole thing (which would be very
dangerous and undesirable, if it for instance allowed them to redefine
obligations onto other players).

Contrast CFJs 2438 (about the meaning of "contestmaster") and 1930, each
of which may suggest precedents which lead to the judgement I don't
want; I'm not sure if the situation is sufficiently different here.
(Note that it would be unfair for me to submit puzzles via a proxy, as
it would give them an unfair advantage in the champion's contest.)


Caller's Evidence:

An excerpt from Enigma:
6) For the purpose of this contest, a puzzle is a body of text clearly
identified as such, accompanied by its correct answer, and sent
privately to the contestmaster by a contestant (hereafter its author)
who has not previously submitted a puzzle during the same week. The
author of a puzzle SHALL NOT disclose its answer to any other


Judge scshunt's Arguments:

According to the evidence submitted by the caller, the the question is
esentially reduced to {For the purposes of Enigma, Enigma's
contestmaster is a contestant of Enigma.}. There is no provided
definition of contestant, either in Enigma itself or in the rules. As a
result, R754 says to use the ordinary-language definition of the word.
Oxford defines it as {A person taking part in a contest; a competitor}.
Competitor is defined as {Someone who competes; a rival}. Rival is {a
person or thing that competes with another or tries to do the same
thing}. Under these definitions, it seems that a contestmaster is not
a contestant. This concurs with Judge woggle's ruling in CFJ 2438, which
contends that a contestmaster is not a contestant of a contest.

However, the function of the contract and definition need to be taken
into account. R2169 says that an equity case can be raised for any
reason under which the contract fails to operate as envisioned. This
strongly implies that the intent of a contract supersedes the text in
cases of ambiguity such as this. It is clear from ais523's actions as
Enigma's contestmaster, from the lack of any objection by a party to
Enigma, and from my own views as a party to Enigma that the contract is
inteded to operate such that the contestmaster can in fact submit