==============================  CFJ 2522  ==============================

    If the contestmaster of a contest is flipped to a person who is
    already the contestmaster of another contest, that person thereby
    becomes a contestmaster.

========================================================================

Caller:                                 omd

Judge:                                  G.
Judgement:                              TRUE

========================================================================

History:

Called by omd:                          11 May 2009 00:45:21 GMT
Assigned to G.:                         11 May 2009 05:06:16 GMT
Judged TRUE by G.:                      11 May 2009 16:18:41 GMT

========================================================================

Caller's Arguments:

The wording is ambiguous.  In my opinion, the person is
already a contestmaster and can't become one.

========================================================================

Caller's Evidence:

Rule 2136/29 (Power=1)
Contests

...

        b) A member of that player's basis has already become a
           contestmaster within the past seven days.

========================================================================

Judge G.'s Arguments:

First of all, "contestmaster" is a switch regulated by Agora.  It's
possible that the "contestmaster" defined in a contract may differ
from the value of the switch, and changing the contestmaster switch
is not a defined "contract change", so various rules on contract
changes are not directly relevant -- a contract change may lead to
a contract state which then permits the switch to be flipped (even
automatically), but that's not a direct conflict between rules on
contract changes and the contestmaster switch.

*Within* Rule 2136, it is possible that the sentence "CAN be
flipped... as specified by the contract" might be in conflict with
the later sentence "CANNOT be flipped to a given player if any of
the following are true..." but I find that it's natural, within
a single paragraph, to infer a combined structure "CAN be flipped
... unless any of the following are true" which does not lead to
conflict.[*]

Second, given the slight ambiguity in wording, I shall note the
specific comments in proposal 6037 that introduced the wording:

   [Multiple rapid contest-creation has been exploited.  This
    change replaces the "only one contest per contestmaster"
    with a slow-play limit, that allows more contests per
                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    contestmaster but slows scams].
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

While "legislative intent" is not always a good precedent to use to
infer meaning that's not there at all, and each voter might have a
different reading and intent when voting, in the case where the
intent is directly, specifically, and clearly laid out, and the
intent is in line with at least one reasonable reading of the
rule in question, the intent is reasonable to use.

I judge TRUE, as long as a contestmaster has not become (i.e.
"been actively switched to being") a contestmaster in the last seven
days, e can become a contestmaster of multiple contests.

[*] If the "combined CAN/CANNOT within a paragraph doesn't seem
reasonable, here's the alternate approach.  If you consider that
the two sentences within the single rule conflict with each other,
you might argue that R2240 leads us to drop the later CANNOT
in favor of the CAN.  However, the CANNOT directly claims
precedence while the CAN does not (thus implicitly deferring to
an explicit claim), leading us (if we infer a conflict) to favor
the CANNOT, with the same results described above.

========================================================================

Judge G.'s Evidence:

Proposal 6037 (Democratic, AI=2.0, Interest=1) by Goethe
Contest Patch

[Multiple rapid contest-creation has been exploited.  This
change replaces the "only one contest per
contestmaster" with a slow-play limit, that allows more contests
per contestmaster but slows scams].

Amend Rule 2136 (Contests) by replacing:
      b) Doing so would cause a player to be contestmaster of more
         than one contest.
with:
      b) Doing so would cause a player to be contestmaster when a
         member of eir basis has already become a contestmaster
         within the past seven days.

========================================================================

Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

Arrgh!  By the phrasing of the CFJ, the seven-day qualifier should
(strictly speaking) lead to UNDETERMINED based on whether the time
limit has passed.   H. CotC Murphy, please append this comment as
gratuitous; although I would understand a repeal/remand I'd like to
suggest that it's sufficiently trivial an error with arguments laid
out to not require it.

========================================================================