On Mon, 9 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > 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...
But (I think?) there was a judgement to the fact of "if something is fundamentally done for one reason it shouldn't be mistaken as being an attempt to do something else." So maybe we have to look at all the null strings you've published and identify which ones were for the contest? And how do we tell the difference between when you did that and when you refrained from publishing null strings for the contest, and instead simply failed to publish a non-null string? (To stop the above from devolving to further absurdity, it's better to assume that actively publishing nothing is legally treated as not doiong anything; i.e. not performing). -Goethe
