Originally Posted by pokerjl
B) Employees of ... any company of The Walt Disney Company, and immediate family members of such employees, are not eligible to participate in any WSOP Events
C) Immediate Family is defined as: spouse, children and any relative or other person residing in the employee’s place of residence
That's the exact wording of the rule. My mother has worked at a Disney Store for the past 20 years so my heart dropped when I read B) but when I read C), I was sort of given some hope. The way it's worded (for example, the lack of a comma after children, in my mind including it with the rest of the sentence), I SHOULD be able to play since I moved out of my parent's home some time ago.
I called the WSOP number and asked about this and the guy I initially spoke to said based on that rule, he was "99% certain (I) would be fine" but that the specific person he would have to ask was in a meeting and told me to call back later. I called back later and the same guy I spoke to earlier said he was told I am ineligible to participate. When I asked why because the rule 16-C appears to state otherwise, he just said it doesn't matter because of my affiliation with Disney... He said he felt for me but that's what he was told.
I'm not going to make my mom quit he job she's worked for 20 years but it just seems like such crap that the rule appears to be just ignored and I can't play because my mom whom I do not live with works the cash register at a disney store in a strip mall.
I understand your desire to play here, I mean who wouldn't like to play the world series?!
Originally Posted by teepack
Well you could always lie (or feign ignorance). Get a copy of the certification form and see what it says. It is probably some form that you sign when you register that they really don't expect you to read. I really don't think they are doing backgrounds checks on the thousands of players who play each year.
Lying is not a good line to take, and feigning ignorance will only blow up in your face when they find this thread and bring up the fact that an agent mentioned it at a meeting and passed the information along to you. I understand your point here on background checks, but if given the chance I think any organization would seize a few hundred thousand $ due to a loophole in a contract and they would surely investigate winners (if you did happen to run that
good that day!).
Originally Posted by OzExorcist
I'm not a lawyer, but my reading of that would suggest that as long as you don't live in the same house you should be fine...
I'm not a lawyer either, or an English teacher... But from my understanding, a comma in this situation is usually meant to be read as 'and' if you refer to other legal documents or even in the MSM (look at the headlines on CNN for example). I'll give you both sides' argument as I see them:
You are eligible
to play because the rules disqualify a spouse or anyone who lives with an employee of the company (but you don't live with her anymore, and I'm guessing you didn't marry your mom ).
You are not eligible
to play because children of any employee are disqualified and the agent you spoke with advised you that you were ineligible.
I guess if it comes down to it, a few hundred grand or a million $ (god forbid) would be worth a phone call to get your mom to quit... On the other hand, I wouldn't enter a tourney without accepting the fact that you may be denied your winnings even if you stack all the chips! (but I think this is a risk we all accept for any tournament due to the insane variance)