==============================  CFJ 2404  ==============================

    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.


Caller:                                 G.
Barred:                                 ais523

Judge:                                  Wooble
Judgement:                              FALSE



Called by G.:                           09 Mar 2009 16:47:52 GMT
Assigned to Wooble:                     12 Mar 2009 23:06:23 GMT
Judged FALSE by Wooble:                 18 Mar 2009 13:57:45 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

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.


Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:

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.)


Judge Wooble's Arguments:

If the contestmaster did not, in fact, perform the contract-defined
duties of the contest in a timely manner, the Scorekeepor has no
duties whatsoever with respect to that contest under R2234; e is under
no obligation to list contests for which e is not awarding points. (E
could be said to have performed the empty set of duties, which could
argue for a ruling of UNDETERMINED here, but I'm reading the CFJ
statement as asserting e performed at least one duty with respect to
the contest.) If the contestmaster did perform the duties, then
announcing that e is not awarding points can't satisfy a requirement
that e SHALL award points.