Ktom asked me how i differentiate, i use the legal term as a way of doing so.

Lars said:

The question I was trying to ask was how you tell the difference between making an honest mistake and "not giving a crap" in the first place. Your answer seems to involve culpability and harm actually being done; a sort of "no harm, no foul" approach. But in my world (healthcare), honest mistakes can lead to considerable harm. And "not giving a crap" won't necessarily hurt anyone, depending on the environment and some luck. How do you tell the difference, based on outcome, between someone honestly trying to do their best (and being wrong) and someone genuinely not caring or attempting to meet an obligation? Does "intent to do harm" enter into any of your considerations, whether the harm is actually caused or not, and how do you judge someone's intent?

Where I have been baffled through this whole conversation is that you seem to imply that human error happens (of course), we can't take it out of the equation completely (I'm with you) and because it can't be removed completely, there is nothing to be gained or learned by calling attention to it and examining it when it happens (and you've lost me). Said another way, through the whole discussion, you seem to be saying that if the action/error does not deserve punitive action, there should be no action at all. My feeling is that even an honest mistake can, and often should, be answered with remedial action without ever needing to go to a punitive level. Sure, no one is harmed by FFG not spelling a proper name from the source material consistently on a single card, and sure, it may have been an honest mistake in editing as opposed to an editor/proofer "not giving a crap" enough to do their job properly (as implied by Max in the original post). There is no need to get all up in arms over it and call for blood. But especially in light of the fact that, while rare, this is not an isolated incident of inconsistent spelling of the same name on the same card, a friendly shout of "consistent spelling is a good thing to check carefully, particularly on unique characters; keep a sharper eye out in the future, please" to FFG seems completely reasonable to me. It would probably even be appreciated.

let me try to tie this portion of the conversation back in with the original point in my first post as it feels like this conversation has really tacked a new course.

Typo.....okay point it out, ONCE. now its a dead issue. here is why. AGoT, with a few notable examples, is relatively typo free. Myrcella Lannister will be Myrcella Lannister in perpituity to prevent you from having her and a future Myrcella Baratheon in your deck. Most of the time a typo gets brought up here, it is by a new player discovering an old one and we kind of gloss over it. From what i've heard FFG is a place where if you mess up you are going to be accountable (and a few of us have seen when heads roll because of mistakes). This is what makes me more forgiving and not seeing a need for remidial or punative action on my part as I know that FFG is more then likely aware of its own faults, that it is going to handle it, and if someone was being negligant it will get assigned to someone else. FFG as a company might have its issues, but widespread typos (in regard to AGoT) does not seem to be one of them and again makes it easier for me to overlook it when it does happen. If i do see a typo am i going to tell the world about and question the quality control of FFG, probably not. If i see 3 on 3 different cards in a single chapter pack....I'd send them an e-mail, if i saw 3 on 3 again in the next chapter pack (i.e. endemic og negligence instead of what a typo is) i'd start telling the world and questioning their commitment to quality.

Typos is one thing. There is more to the subject of this discussion. For instance one card for the Cthulhu Card Game Core Set, a character, is printed in different faction colours. So one faction got more cards than the other.

Nate, asked if it was by mistake or purpously, supposably said:

"Yeah, it's something we'll have to correct with future printings, for now the Core version of Clarney will have to be played as an Agency character. Errata-ing a card's faction is too much to remember, and too disjointing, IMO."
- Nate

[here is the source where I found "Nate's words": new.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp ].

You would expect, that a new start for AGOT and COC will be well prepared businesswise; that all the delays we got served had happened because FFG was taking time to check and prepare everything (I was kind of thinking that). But that's not what was happening.