On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 15:15 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 16:13 -0400, comex wrote:
> >> In my opinion, if it had said "all duties", ais523's argument would be
> >> valid; as it is, I think the best interpretation (considering that 'in
> >> a timely manner' is located at the end and vaguely defined) is that
> >> the contestmaster is merely required to perform some duties related to
> >> the contest-- not necessarily all, but e gets no points if e performed
> >> no duties even if no duties are required of em.
> >
> > What about the admittedly vacuous duty of publishing a null string every
> > week?
>
> Can you prove that you published the null string for the contest as opposed
> to for other purposes? ;)
>
The rule doesn't require me to /intentionally/ perform my duties...
--
ais523
