On Wed, 2011-12-21 at 16:36 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Thu, 22 Dec 2011, Alex Smith wrote: > > (Thanks to Bucky for discussing this with me.) > > > > CFJ (barring Bucky): With no changes to rule 2333, nor to other rules > > that would change how rule 2333 is interpreted, > > Just curious, since interpretations are of the ruleset at the time > the CFJ is called, is there a reason to be extra-protective here > about ruleset changes? -G.
Yes. I don't want to give too much more information, though. -- ais523
