On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, comex wrote: > Then we shall interpret the first-class player clause as something > completely different, where intent is the more important thing?
Not intent, but specific practicality of what first-class players are. If we take the whole term "allow any first-class player", we can use the reasonable abilities of an attentive first-class player as a starting point. This can depend on the current cross-section of players: just as CFJ 1460 hinges on communication consisting on what a reasonable current player could understand (which would have had a different result if there were a sufficient number of Turkish players), this CFJ could hinge, on the amount of time that reasonably "allows" a first-class player to respond (which might be different if all players were responding to things every minute). Oh, and I just thought of a better argument for a sufficient time-limit measured in days: R101(v) *explicitly* requires that a first-class player have a "reasonable opportunity to review" a contract before it is considered binding. For a contest to be open to all first-class players, then ALL first-class players would have needed a reasonable opportunity to review the contract. If a contract appears and vanishes in such a short time, then this reasonable opportunity was not provided. -Goethe
