Goethe wrote:
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.
All first-class players who were bound by that contract did have a
reasonable opportunity to review it. "Open to all first-class players"
doesn't mean they /are/ bound by it, only that they /could/ be bound by
it, hence it fails to trigger R101(v).
