the **** you think you are doing man

if you get elected with this then i will spam you ever day with hate

YOURE A REAL ******* TO EVERYONE WHO DOESNT AGREE WITH YOU

Okay, this is beyond ridiculous.....even when I have disagreed with you, I respected your opinions...and I rarely disagree with you, Dras. There is obviously a maturity issue with these folks and you are the better person.

the **** you think you are doing man

if you get elected with this then i will spam you ever day with hate

YOURE A REAL ******* TO EVERYONE WHO DOESNT AGREE WITH YOU

That's awful, I'm sorry you have to deal with that. But I think this reinforces my point that this is a bad idea because it is already pitting people against our favorite rules guru.

Perhaps I should clarify:

This already happens.

This is the status Quo.

It has... Increased the volume slightly... (about a weeks worth overnight), but.... Nothing New.

Most get ignored. The more... worse ones, get reported and blocked... I occasionally follow up some of the member names, and they're often banned for it...

But its here, and its on my Facebook for my Business.

Its already what I deal with.

But it rattles me, and shakes my confidence, and smacks me around mentally. The single biggest disappointment about it is, really, being the rules guy is the only thing I'm actually really good at. So I find it ludicrous that an offhand suggestion by myself can be taken so seriously. Because I can't respect myself that much.

Is this a solution looking for a problem? I've played in quite a few tournaments, and I don't think I've ever had a major rule issue...

But Crabbok, we have that now. If it always worked, or we could rely on FFG for timely answers, this thread wouldn't exist.

...and do you think a committee will always work? I don't. I don't see us really improving the situation beyond the way it is now. Maybe slight changes. It's been suggested that we try to maintain a general thread of community agreed-upon FAQ type entries that don't yet exist in an FAQ. I'm all for that, so long as we include both sides of the argument in summarized form, for any issues that there is still debate about.

I'd like to echo that I don't think this is that big a deal to go through this much effort for, on anyone's part.

I don't see how the committee suggestion is in any way better than what we already have.

The reason we don't have consensus is because the rules are open to interpretation. If someone disagrees with anyone else's interpretation, then they just don't use that interpretation. Substituting the 'judgement' of a 'committee' for the ramblings and arguments of the forums would make it easier to copy and paste the rule guidance into a document, but that's really all this would be.

You could easily just create a (stickied, ideally) topic that is basically the equivalent of a "known-issues page", and then copy-paste the various approaches advocated by the forum community. We all know that usually there are basically going to be 2 ways of deciding an issue, so just copy down the best arguments for either side.

And that's all you've gotta do. Sift the cogent and well reasoned arguments from the swamp of the rules sub forum into one topic that people can browse or a TO can go to on the fly.

Don't need a committee, don't need votes or nominations, don't need people to get more mad than they already do.

Is this a solution looking for a problem? I've played in quite a few tournaments, and I don't think I've ever had a major rule issue...

(Shhhh....Don't you see that they're trying to get FFG to release an Official FAQ?)

I think what the against camp is forgetting is all this will mean is that when you go to a tourny and we are needing clarifications on things and those clarifications are not on the horizon then there will be a document TOs can reference for consensus, out they can simply choose not to. Which won't effect you cause its as if this didn't even exist for you. But instead of wondering you can simply ask your to will you be using these consensus rulings from the forums? If yes good for you guys you will know ahead of time exactly what way all of these questions will fall. If the TO says no then you will be in the same situation as if this didn't exist.

But Crabbok, we have that now. If it always worked, or we could rely on FFG for timely answers, this thread wouldn't exist.

...and do you think a committee will always work? I don't. I don't see us really improving the situation beyond the way it is now. Maybe slight changes. It's been suggested that we try to maintain a general thread of community agreed-upon FAQ type entries that don't yet exist in an FAQ. I'm all for that, so long as we include both sides of the argument in summarized form, for any issues that there is still debate about.

I very much agree with the community maintained FAQ, except for the one major issue of not having a **** moderator to sticky it.

Also, I think we should start pm'ing dras pictures of kitties. To bring balance to the force.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions... Unless there is no hell then it's a party!

For those of us that are "lurkers"; I hardly ever post yet check the forums probably daily I don't understand the reasoning behind the committee aspect. Having a supreme committee that makes the decisions seems to imply that my opinion is worth less simply because I'm not as popular.

I feel disagreements on rules should be decided by reason and the strength of the underlying argument of all perspectives. Not the opinions of 5 people, even if I agreed with their opinions.

In the end I think this is a bad idea and it's going to make people upset. Analogy to politics, no matter what a politician does or says at least 50% of the population is going to hate them for it.

Poor Dras hasn't even done anything wrong and already he's feeling the heat.

This is really what this is all about:

Guys like I said this while thing would do very little for many of us, but seriously if your don't want to use it then don't.... It's really that simple. If you would rather just have a single document that compiled the debates on certain topics than no one is preventing that and I would think it would be will received.

Let me clarify my (and I assume others) opinion.

Love the idea of having a centralized file that documents the question regarding the application of a rule or card. But don't understand why someone/group/committee has to make a pseudo (un)official ruling? Why can't such a file simply contain the various interpretations of the card/rule and the reasoning behind it? That way it's a great resource for everyone including FFG and TOs and it provides the arguments for and against differing interpretations for TOs to make decisions for themselves for their respective events.

To me this is not a question of who needs to be on the committee it's a question of who wants to start compiling information into a single location. No body is making any judgments or rulings simply providing information.

I do think at this point though, that it doesn't much matter. I feel like we clearly don't have the necessary community support for such a body to have value.

Sorry Dras to hear of the bile against you, that is crap.

I think this notion of some community nominated or self appointed committee to give their "ruling" is not really helpful.

As some have said, this really is simple - if we can have 1 person own a thread that FFG will sticky, who is willing to simply keep that thread updated with FAQs that have no official FAQ, they can try and sum up the various thoughts on how to make a ruling. That makes it very easy for a TO or player to find questions and answers.

Guys like I said this while thing would do very little for many of us, but seriously if your don't want to use it then don't.... It's really that simple. If you would rather just have a single document that compiled the debates on certain topics than no one is preventing that and I would think it would be will received.

If it will do very little for us, then why put so much effort and discussion into doing it? And you seem to be forgetting the fact that this can be felt beyond the online community.

I think another important question is will these nominees actually do this? Dras is catching flak already. I would not put him up to this.

Is this a solution looking for a problem? I've played in quite a few tournaments, and I don't think I've ever had a major rule issue...

Honestly I'm with WWPDSteven

I run the tourneys at our store. I've told players that any rule question that I get will be solved this way:

1) Check RRG

2) Check FAQ

3) Try to reason it out myself from available resources

4) If nothing decisive comes up, we will use interpretation the benefits the defense side.

This committee wouldn't help me any more than the rules forum already does. Rules forum gives me a good source of looking at reasoning behind ways to interpret cards. (The step 3) Imperfect as it may be, it is a very useful forum

Right- I think the function this is looking to perform is already done admirably by folks like Drasnighta. I don't think a committee is needed at all, but if even one person could just put a single thread together of "known issues" that were summarized... I think we'd be good to go.

Right- I think the function this is looking to perform is already done admirably by folks like Drasnighta. I don't think a committee is needed at all, but if even one person could just put a single thread together of "known issues" that were summarized... I think we'd be good to go.

Could a thread that has links to the known issues work? That seems an easier way to do it than summarizing every issue. Except for the threads that have 10+ pages.

I'd be willing to spearhead a thread that documents all the known issues so far if I can get some help from people feeding me information on where to find this stuff. I'm going to email FFG today and see if they will allow us to get a sticky thread on it.

I'm considering having a format of what the topic is, the link to find it, and a quick summary of the major arguments on how the issue at hand.

Suggestions?

"The more you tighten your grip, rules lawyers, the more rules will slip through your fingers."

I think this is a terrible idea, to be blunt. The reason that FAQs work is that they have the stamp of official authority from FFG. Attempting to create that when you are not (i) a designer, (ii) an employee of FFG, or (iii) in any way empowered to enforce a ruling is more likely to produce strife than it is to produce unity. "Who are you to tell me what the rules are?" will become the rallying cry. I have seen these sorts of attempts before, and the reality is that when the producing company is relatively responsive and functional (and FFG is, relative to peers), it's not value added.

I am for a header in the rules reference forum where someone could keep a linked list to discussions and to consolidate issues so that the sub-forum is not a rolling flustercluck of disorganization, but I honestly believe the attempt to organize an unofficial FAQ group is likely to do more harm than good in this context.

Thing is, reinholt, is that if we follow what you suggest, the rules subforum will still be a rolling *********** of disorganization, just with a pretty face.

Edit: I'm sorry, that was unacceptable, I've been having a frustrating at work and it spilled over into here. For that, I am sorry, However, just slapping a band-aid on it won't solve a thing right now.

I'd be willing to spearhead a thread that documents all the known issues so far if I can get some help from people feeding me information on where to find this stuff. I'm going to email FFG today and see if they will allow us to get a sticky thread on it.

I'm considering having a format of what the topic is, the link to find it, and a quick summary of the major arguments on how the issue at hand.

Suggestions?

Honestly, I would help with this as well.

"The more you tighten your grip, rules lawyers, the more rules will slip through your fingers."

I think this is a terrible idea, to be blunt. The reason that FAQs work is that they have the stamp of official authority from FFG. Attempting to create that when you are not (i) a designer, (ii) an employee of FFG, or (iii) in any way empowered to enforce a ruling is more likely to produce strife than it is to produce unity. "Who are you to tell me what the rules are?" will become the rallying cry. I have seen these sorts of attempts before, and the reality is that when the producing company is relatively responsive and functional (and FFG is, relative to peers), it's not value added.

I am for a header in the rules reference forum where someone could keep a linked list to discussions and to consolidate issues so that the sub-forum is not a rolling flustercluck of disorganization, but I honestly believe the attempt to organize an unofficial FAQ group is likely to do more harm than good in this context.

A great summary, as always, that mirrors my thoughts as well. The consolidated list of issues/questions with brief summary of arguments on how they can be resolved within the current rules is useful. But any rulings/committees are not (as for any tournaments its TO who's going to make a call and the presence of that ruling potentially makes some bad vibes between TO and players if his call contradicts the ruling. And for casual games it doesn't really matter, as players can always agree on how they play it (even by rolling a die to make a decision) and if they can't agree, maybe they shouldn't play that game as they won't enjoy it). So I feel that while the intent was good, any move in that direction is more likely to become an apple of discord rather than being useful.

I'd be willing to spearhead a thread that documents all the known issues so far if I can get some help from people feeding me information on where to find this stuff. I'm going to email FFG today and see if they will allow us to get a sticky thread on it.

I'm considering having a format of what the topic is, the link to find it, and a quick summary of the major arguments on how the issue at hand.

Suggestions?

Honestly, I would help with this as well.

I just sent an email to the webmaster asking for a sticky thread in the rules sub forum. If they allow it, I will start another thread for people to contribute their ideas.