On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Trainphreak wrote: > Hi all, new Watcher here. > > I just finished reading through the ruleset and the saga of Rule 2437 and CFJ > 3429. > Can someone explain why it's ambiguous whether Rule 2437 was repealed or not? > > The only answer I could come up with is that there game may or may not have > been > won by ais's attempted counterscam, in which case 2437 would have > self-repealed.
Welcome, Trainphreak... good question!! When the CFJ 3429 trainwreck failed to answer the question, the issue was broken into several parts, CFJs 3432-3435. Reading the decisions of 3432-3435 together, it looks like several obstacles to the scam working have been cleared. In particular, we've found that it was POSSIBLE to make the change by giving reasonable review (CFJs 3432-3434). It's also POSSIBLE that a review need not take 4 days, but that has to be figured out on a case-by-case basis (CFJ3435). It remains to be asked whether, in THIS case, 4 days was required. A new ruleset hasn't been produced since these cases were out. -G.
