On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 2:05 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> root broke rule 1742 by failing to act in accordance with the
> Brainfuck Golf contract.
The part of the contract root allegedly failed to comply with:
> The Brainfuck Golf contract, reads, in part:
> {{{
> 11) The contestmaster shall be root.
> }}}
This sentence states that ideally, the contestmaster is root. There
are three possible interpretations of this:
1. The contract is merely requesting that the contestmaster be root.
2. If there is a contestmaster, e SHALL be root.
3. root SHALL be the contestmaster.
If either 1 or 2 is the correct interpretation, root is INNOCENT:
simple requests generally don't have any effect, and root is in fact
root. If 3 is the correct interpretation, however, e may be GUILTY.
I argue that interpretation 3 is unreasonable. If I want to impose an
obligation on Ed Murphy to be Herald, say, I don't say "the Herald
shall be Ed Murphy"; I say "Ed Murphy shall be the Herald": the former
imposes an obligation on the Herald, the latter on Murphy. Therefore,
INNOCENT is appropriate.
Another possible judgment is UNAWARE, if root wants to argue for that.
(By the way, you oughtn't say "member" when you mean "party". The
rules don't define "member" for non-partnerships, I believe, and the
two words have different meanings.)
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
