Looking to link up with Marshals and Judges from all over. Looking to discuss rulings and tournament structure and how we can maintain the integrity of the game, while guiding new players and making a great community. If anybody is interested, let me know. Could do a Google Hangout or a group on other forms of social media.

You are aware that most Marshals and Judges are Store Owners and players willing to run tournaments, not a special title outside of the rules from FFG. It's not like Magic. You are going to get a wide variety of opinions. There's no test or anything at this time.

3 minutes ago, Hida77 said:

You are aware that most Marshals and Judges are Store Owners and players willing to run tournaments, not a special title outside of the rules from FFG. It's not like Magic. You are going to get a wide variety of opinions. There's no test or anything at this time.

I'm well aware of that. Doesn't mean we can't have a rules discussions thread or anything similar though.

Fair enough, just making sure you were aware. Lots of Marshals/Judges may not be rules experts, etc. That's all I am saying.

9 minutes ago, Hida77 said:

Fair enough, just making sure you were aware. Lots of Marshals/Judges may not be rules experts, etc. That's all I am saying.

Which is more of a reason to do this. Just so everyone is up to date with what's going on. I see a lot of disputes over rulings and that's what lead to me wanting to do this.

52 minutes ago, Monkaroni said:

Which is more of a reason to do this. Just so everyone is up to date with what's going on. I see a lot of disputes over rulings and that's what lead to me wanting to do this.

It's the reason to do this if you expect people to be able to reach agreements. What Hida is getting at is this is as far from a homogeneous group as you can get. Sure, you will absolutely get opinions on how certain rules are interpreted/situations handled, but you're not likely to get a group consensus due to the open nature of the position, and those that currently fill the roll.

... In fact, you're likely going to find more heated discussions in that group, because some may be told that they're running events wrong, and there is zero power or experts to be levied to address the situation -- these folks may just take it personally.

I'm suggesting a worst case scenario, of course. But this forum really makes me think it's the most likely.

Other games have a series of checks and balances. For this, you're better to coordinate with local judges and the like and just make sure you have your own internal consistency, while we're still in a limbo-state for this game.

Yes, sadly this is the wrong place to try this. There are some very vocal yet completely clueless people here and the rules discussions just get muddied. The best thing to do is just send in rule clarification request on a case by case bases until their FQA is filled out a bit more.

We do the best we can with what we're given. There seems to be a lot of issues arising from the latter.

15 minutes ago, Mep said:

Yes, sadly this is the wrong place to try this. There are some very vocal yet completely clueless people here and the rules discussions just get muddied. The best thing to do is just send in rule clarification request on a case by case bases until their FQA is filled out a bit more.

A collection of "answered" questions would be more valuable than any current "meeting of the minds."

A tighter rule set would preclude the necessity of answered questions, but I'm probably beating a dead horse here. Personally, I see a lot less "frequently asked questions" than I do corner cases which the rules are only vaguely able to answer. It makes for a whole lot of confusion and not a lot of consensus.

If there was a Google group for this I'd definitely be interested. Perhaps I wouldn't agree with every ruling, but as someone looking to host their first swd event in about a month, I'd at least like to hear about rulings that other judges make.

6 hours ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

A tighter rule set would preclude the necessity of answered questions, but I'm probably beating a dead horse here. Personally, I see a lot less "frequently asked questions" than I do corner cases which the rules are only vaguely able to answer. It makes for a whole lot of confusion and not a lot of consensus.

lol @ "probably"

What is the #1 top corner case that the rules can only vaguely answer in your opinion?

5 minutes ago, [Ace] said:

lol @ "probably"

What is the #1 top corner case that the rules can only vaguely answer in your opinion?

Formula for confusion:

Queue + Anything That Alters The Queue = confusion.

There are too many things that can lead to nested/altered resolutions in the queue.

Some of these cases the rules handle, but you have to create flow charts for them to understand.

Formula for mass confusion:

Queue + Anything That Alters The Queue + Ambuguity = mass confusion

The ambuguity is what is hitting us the most here. The veteran LCG and CCG players argue over rules because of the ambiguity.

37 minutes ago, [Ace] said:

lol @ "probably"

What is the #1 top corner case that the rules can only vaguely answer in your opinion?

There are still a lot of unanswered questions in the 1/24 update thread regarding game state, etc. I feel like that update created more questions than it answered. That's less of a vague corner case and more of a "we have absolutely no idea."

8 hours ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

...but I'm probably beating a dead horse here....

Any one with more than a read of 5 threads will have noticed that already, I think that poor horse has been meat pie mince for a few days already.

I just use the contacts form and ask my questions, all of them have made the rule book or FAQ, so I think there is some merit to using the contact us form.

Mmm, horse pie.