kodi wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 11:52 am
One question for CDavis:
CDavis7M wrote: ↑Mon Nov 21, 2022 6:29 am
One step forward. Looks like others are reading the charter so maybe there can be legitimacy at some point.
This means that you consider Manuel is not capable and are you proposing yourself as the judge?
When I said "looks like others are reading the charter" I was referring to this post (and its predecessor):
viewtopic.php?f=118&p=40306#p40306
kodi wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 11:52 am
1. Do you like the proposal and method to work as team?
2. Do you think Manuel should be the judge or not?
Maybe I can give some thoughts:
Manuel wrote: ↑Sat Nov 19, 2022 1:11 pm
1. I am the guy who opens new rules inquiries. These can come from the tournaments we hold, from the many questions that arise in our different channels and require attention, or from individuals asking me directly, or bringing questions to the table. I would be the one "opening the case" in the NetRep's corner. I present the problem, bring the info I have, and share my opinion on the matter if I have one. (By the way, I know there are lots of questions already answered in this forum. It would be nice to collect the answers and include them in this document, too. )
I don't really like the idea of the inquires being behind closed doors. Of course the NetRep will need to do some picking and choosing but I see no reason why all CoE rules inquiries should not be available for review by the CoE community on the CoE forums. Or unless it's to protect against silly (difficult?) questions like "my opponent says that can draw card using the number in the gray box -- where do the rules say that?"(2 miscellaneous marshalling points if you know).
Manuel wrote: ↑Sat Nov 19, 2022 1:11 pm
Debate opens. It's an open debate where anyone who has something to say may do so.
This is a bit confusing because wasn't the original post about avoiding debates?
Manuel wrote: ↑Sat Nov 19, 2022 1:11 pm
1A. We are all working as a team so please remove your egos from the equation. Avoid sarcasm at the expense of others. Try not to be patronizing, and understand that there's nothing wrong with disagreeing with others; it's a necessary part of any teamwork! Think of it more like mutual enlightenment. This is not a game of who knows more than anyone else, but a goal we must accomplish as a team, so we are all here to help each other out and grow with others' opinions. The key is cooperation, not competition.
I think debating and teamwork are two very concepts. To me, a debate is about presenting views and addressing issues and concerns, and maybe even finding a correct view. Whereas teamwork is about splitting up a task among members having the same goal. Reading the rules is not a task that can be split among a team because otherwise the members would be lacking context. I don't see any way to divide the task.
Manuel wrote: ↑Sat Nov 19, 2022 1:11 pm
1C. There would be an external moderator for this particular section of the forum. Sarma72 could be a good fit for this if he agrees.
Seems like a lot of extra work on top of holding a debate and then coming up with the top interpretations, making the ruling, publishing the "digest" etc. etc. Isn't the point of a judge that they already know how the rules work.
2. The debate is not open forever. Two weeks should be enough.
Are we still allowed to be sarcastic? Because it could take longer than 2 weeks to find an Unlimited version of Leaflock.
Manuel wrote: ↑Sat Nov 19, 2022 1:11 pm
2A. There's a consensus on what the correct interpretation is.
My impression is that most players don't want a correct interpretation of the rules or a consistent ruling framework, they just want playing Fram Framson with A Chance Meeting to be correct.
Manuel wrote: ↑Sat Nov 19, 2022 1:11 pm
The minimum number of opinions other than mine should be two. In that case, no matter what my opinion on the matter is, I will accept the given interpretation and that will be
official from now on. I have exactly zero interest in being
right, I just want what's better for the game.
In the past the CoE NetReps (seemingly?) had zero interest in being right but just in coming to a conclusion, and that just led to inconsistency and confusion. Whether starting with Troll-chief at a Hidden Haven improved the game or not is debatable.
Manuel wrote: ↑Sat Nov 19, 2022 1:11 pm
I'm offering to be that judge myself because I'm kind of neutral to this forum and the usual rules discussion here... I also have the Spanish community supporting me.
I don't know if I really see neutrality as an advantage. Maybe the Spanish community supports you because they know you from your discussions. Maybe if you weren't so neutral here then there might be support among the 2 or 3 people that post here.
Manuel wrote: ↑Sat Nov 19, 2022 1:11 pm
this has to be done for the sake of the unity of both communities, either by me or by someone else.
Does there need to be a unity of the communities? Usually when there are conflicts of interests then unity does not make sense. A unified community should have unified interests.
----------
From what I've read and seen, there are conflicts of interest and differences in which approaches make sense. I find that long-time players just want to play how they've always played and they don't care to track down the changes or look for consistency. They just know that Ancient Black Axe can be played with Deeper-shadow and they are determined not to read the 2 sentences that tell them why not. And even when presented with the statements they will look for supposed counter examples instead of addressing the rule itself. People also seemed to be determined to find "trick plays" instead of recognizing the parameters of the game's design -- as if the game was still in production and tricks could win you a tournament.
Knowledge without understanding is useless. Is this true? Maybe not. But there is also the problem of
knowing just enough to be dangerous.
Anyway like I said already, I think finding the rules and the relevant context is the most difficult part of understanding the rules, and then recognizing the history, the changes, and the rationale is the next most difficult because it obscures the answer.
Rather than simply coming to a (wrong/right) conclusion, I think it makes more sense to present the information, which if reviewed should be self-evident. Even the difficult questions become more clear the more I find.