On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 4:39 PM, ais523 <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes. I don't want to give too much more information, though.
Maybe this is one of those cases where first there's a CFJ on a simple statement - the judge selects whichever interpretation looks most reasonable at first glance - then a scam is pulled which depends on that interpretation, and it's too late to choose another one because it's already in precedent!* Well, maybe not, since I don't see how this is ambiguous at all. (I'm being silly. I think there's a reason older players tend to avoid interpretation scams.) *not really, due to "the best interests of the game", but in practice, would CFJ 2002 have been judged that way if someone had already attempted to exploit the ability to take actions on behalf of an instrument?
