Charles Reiss wrote: >Because watcher is quoted (2) is an especially plausible interpretation in >this case. The use of 'a' obviously makes it less plausible but can be >excused as an inconsequential typo.
The quotes can also be excused as an inconsequential grammatical mistake, or as indicating unfamiliarity with the terminology, supporting interpretation (1). >Because interpretation (2) and (3) are plausible (even if less likely intended >than interpretation (1)), we must interpret the message as causing Pavitra to >become a player per R754, which requires the rules' definitions to prevail by >default. This doesn't follow. It's most sensible to choose the most plausible interpretation. Rule 754's "default" clause does not mean that rule definitions are to be used implausibly. You also have the option to determine that the message is void due to ambiguity. >As for H. Appeleate Panelist Goethe's arguments, I do not believe that R101's >requirement of consent applies to becoming bound by the rules. Good analysis in this paragraph. -zefram
