[onetwo_threefour]

I suppose that where you have a historical precedent that has worked, the kinds of issues I'm raising don't come up because there is an established custom for how to deal with this. Even Edmonton has not used the c/s status for a number of years. I guess my issue is partially relating to the rationale for making the change. Is there really a reason not to disclose the c/s status if asked as this unnamed brokerage is proposing. That's a separate issue from whether the c/s status is used on MLS, but they are definitely related, and if one broker is using the rule change as an excuse to deflect the question when directly asked, then that too is part of the ramifications to be considered in making this change.

is there really such a problem with deals not firming up that this chamge is needed.