Originally Posted by
80ktsClamp
This post is so incredibly true... and a main reason why I'm so iffy on this whole thing. The wording is vague in many places and trusts the company who has knowingly gone around our poor wording very recently. Are we just going to throw our hands up again like with the RAH thing and say "well dang, we missed that one again... we'll get it next time!"
Let's be a bit more proactive this time and actually stress test this thing on worst case.
Sadly, the only way to fix this much stuff is to vote it down and demand change. Having a the reps, and attornies look at the language line by line prior to a TA being reached is where this stuff is easily fixed.
I am iffy to, but some of this stuff is not good at all.