On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 1:43 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would like to submit the additional argument that the contest in > question would have failed to become a contest were it attempted > through the normal procedure (even with the full support of root, the > sole party), and therefore it was not among the set of possible > agreements.
Not necessarily. First, that assumes that three players would object. Second, suppose I just happened to do it when nobody was watching? > I call for judgement on the following: > "root is the contestmaster of the equation of CFJ1932." > > Arguments: > Making someone a contestmaster of a contest is regulated by rule 2136. > As each person is restricted to being the contestmaster of exactly one > contest and contestmastership is obtained without the objections of > all players (not all parties as is typical for internal contest > matters), contestmastership is not really an attribute of a contest > but more an attribute of a first-class player, and so not one of the > things that could be set as an attribute of the binding agreements > parties can make. Since each contest is similarly restricted to having exactly one contestmaster, this doesn't really hold water. -root
