On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 8:03 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
So... the replacement contestmaster might be in violation for not being root? Fun!
