I judge CFJ 2750 UNDETERMINED. The way I parse the statement of the CFJ, the conditional is only satisfied if the L&FD (the Chief Whip at the time the CFJ was submitted) makes an announcement. Several rather radical rule changes would be needed before that would be possible, and it's impossible to guess what changes in Truthiness would or would not be made at the same time. Therefore, there's insufficient evidence to resolve the hypothetical.
I judge CFJ 2739 FALSE. "has been" is the present perfect progressive tense; all the top few websites that I checked when doing a Google search for this say that (if used with a duration, like it is in this case) the meaning is of a condition that was continuously true for the stated time period up until now, and is still true now. So "a first-class person has been a player continuously for at least three months" means "continuously during a time period of at least three months ending now, a first-class person was a player". Although this condition applies to Taral, it only applies for eir most recent registration, not for any registration before that; and so, the only time period which meets that condition fails the "was never a player before that period" test. (In other words, Wooble's gratuitous arguments are correct here.) Compare "a first-class person was registered for three months", the present perfect (non-progressive) tense, which would have the meaning that would make this CFJ true. -- ais523
