Not okay, so long as the same shoot-from-the-hip process that Konrad remarks on is used. I'd love to see Konrad as NetRep even though I disagree with just about every single one of his interpretations because he is consistent in his process and in applying his interpretations unilaterally across the board.
On a related note,
The Council shall maintain at least one spokesperson during each session whose duties shall consist of announcing rules, modifications to rules, announcing the recognition of an active council, the announcing of councils who have lapsed into non active status, adjudicating rules disputes, clarifying game play questions posed to the Council, and maintaining the collected rulings file. The title of said office shall be NetRep.
I've got to ask the same question that you asked about the URD. When were you voted on? When did the Council appoint you? Are you actually official?
If you want me to be okay with a forthcoming digest:
1) Synchronize the interpretations of Hoarmurath Unleashed and Adunaphel/Indur Dawndeath. Right now, that's a blaring inconsistency a mile wide;
2) Unify the character play rules (you know, that thread that's been sitting around there for two years) so that cards which have the exact same wording play the exact same way.
3) Establish an order of authority and precedence in making rulings â€“ this will make your job easier, anyway, as people can come to their own conclusions:
Right now, there's a smorgasbord of possible priorities and the reasons given are chosen to suit the preference of the guy who makes the rule. Prioritize the following items in order of Precedence:
ICE Documents (all of them individually)
I've Always Played That Way
Cards with the exact same wording
Cards must explicitly contradict rules
Cards don't have to explicitly contradict rules (yes, both this and the previous have been given as reasons for rulings)
Right now, you're giving ICE-Sanctioned Events Priority over ICE Documents, but you're not giving them priority in the case of the Auto-attack rule. Both rulings are clearly worded enough that the inconsistency in priorities is wrong. Establish the principles of making a ruling, and accept the consequences. Sure, veteran players may have to adjust, but they know the game and cards well enough to be able to do so.
In the meantime, consistency in priority gives the NetRep actual credibility instead of merely authoritarian credibility. Until that happens -- no, not okay.