The NetRep's Job

Locked
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2626
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

The NetRep's Job

Post by Bandobras Took » Thu Mar 03, 2011 8:39 pm

Ben, it is not the NetRep's job to justify rulings, it never has been.
Granted that there have been many shining examples of this through the years, it begs the question: should it be?

Does it really help the game in any way, shape, or form, to have mutually contradictory and counterintuitive rulings that are never justified or explained, simply proclaimed from on high? Does it help bring in new players? Does it establish confidence in the office of the NetRep? Does it instill trust in the CoE, which appoints the NetRep?
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

miguel
Posts: 659
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Re: The NetRep's Job

Post by miguel » Thu Mar 03, 2011 9:26 pm

And then I'd need to discuss them with you for 5 pages? No thanks.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2626
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: The NetRep's Job

Post by Bandobras Took » Thu Mar 03, 2011 10:21 pm

I didn't ask whether it would inconvenience the NetRep.

I asked whether it was better for the game and new players, and for the viability of the CoE as a whole.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Council Member
Posts: 1609
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Re: The NetRep's Job

Post by Thorsten the Traveller » Thu Mar 03, 2011 10:25 pm

I always assumed that's why there was a NetRep team...

As with rl law, judges often create rules in the process of explaining them.
Thus it is in the CoE interest to work closely together with NetRep (team). Either a CoE member should be on the team, or the digest should be available to CoE before publishing it perhaps, just to avoid revoking a ruling later on.
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

miguel
Posts: 659
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Re: The NetRep's Job

Post by miguel » Thu Mar 03, 2011 10:26 pm

I thought the NetRep board is open for everyone to see now?

miguel
Posts: 659
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Re: The NetRep's Job

Post by miguel » Thu Mar 03, 2011 10:49 pm

@Eric:
Yes things are discussed within the NetRep team, but the team has only one spokesperson (NetRep). Every member of the team is of course free to take part in any discussions outside the NetRep board on rules or whatever, just like Konrad has been very actively doing.

I intend to let the team members read all digests before publishing (this has not been done before, and I always thought it should be) to make sure there aren't any mistakes. I have no problem doing the same with the CoE, but I will keep the rules discussions within the NetRep team, that's what the experts are there for.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2626
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: The NetRep's Job

Post by Bandobras Took » Fri Mar 04, 2011 2:48 am

This still leaves the people not on the NetRep team in the position of merely being able to observe. The NetRep board is transparent (which is something I've approved of from the first), but explaining/justifying rulings repeatedly seems to me to be a natural part of making them in the first place.

Unless we're assuming we don't want to grow the player base, of course. If no new players are coming in, it's perfectly reasonable not to expect previous rulings to be justified.

On the other hand, when I see things like this happening:
Miguel wrote:So if people find some contradiction between Ben's document and ICE rulebooks . . .
ICE Rulebooks wrote:If you move The One Ring to Barad-dûr - Sauron is reunited with the One Ring and you win.
Miguel wrote:If you have the One Ring at Barad-dûr - Sauron is reunited with The One Ring and you win.
I think I'd be justified in asking the NetRep to justify his rewriting of an ICE Documented Rule to suit his own opinion even if I weren't a member of the CoE, especially when said NetRep has been espousing the virtues of such ICE-Era documents in other rulings. There sure isn't any such justification on the NetRep board.

This is the most egregious example. I'd like to point out that I don't mind when I don't agree with rulings -- I still don't agree with interaction on Unabated+Tidings. What irritates me is best summed up by Konrad Klar:
It would be more fair to say: "this is serial error present in texts of Nazgul cards. Read <any one character> as just <character>. It was overlooked by years, but now it is changed".
It is more fair than searching in rules for base, than would legitimate old, habitual style of using Adunaphel and Indur effects. I fear that such base does not exist.
Making errata is more consistent, than saying, from one hand, that some phrase exists and, from other hand, that the phrase is meaningless , so should be ignored, while in other cases (Hoarmurath Unleashed, Adunaphel The Ringwraith) it is meaningful and should be respected.
Something must be sacrificed. For me consistency of interpreting rules and card's texts is too high price.
Here's the thread, in case it's relevant: http://www.councilofelrond.org/forum/vi ... f=12&t=534
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

miguel
Posts: 659
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Re: The NetRep's Job

Post by miguel » Fri Mar 04, 2011 8:15 am

Heh, are you complaining about a ruling I haven't even made yet? :wink:

I've said this before, a literal reading of the rules/cards can make you feel like there is contradiction everywhere. Because of the rather poor wording in some instances, the concept of MeCCG rules needs to be somewhat flexible. When necessary to bend them, I try to stay true to what I believe was ICE's intention. I used to play quite a lot in sanctioned events back when ICE was still around, with some excellent rules lawyers, so I believe I do have some knowledge of what I'm talking about. For example the One Ring victory: It has never been necessary to actually move with the ring in any sanctioned event I know of, so I am very hesitant to make it so now.

In many cases the rules can be interpreted in more than one way. But it is imperative to have only one official interpretation (I'm sure the new players you keep mentioning appreciate this), and that's why we have the NetRep. Of course, since it looks like CoE will soon be passing errata, any unclear cards/rules should be taken into consideration, to help remove any seeming contradictions between them and rulings.

The NetRep board is a closed discussion group, because that is the only way to get results. But the people outside of the team can do more than simply observe. You are allowed to contact me with any questions or point of views. I am very poor at answering heckling on public forums, but I try to help people understand rulings when I know they truly want to.

User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Council Member
Posts: 1609
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Re: The NetRep's Job

Post by Thorsten the Traveller » Fri Mar 04, 2011 12:47 pm

@Mikko. Sure, didn't mean to imply everybody should join in the rules discussions, that would a never ending story indeed.

Just saying there are different aspects to rules issues, and NetRep (as any judge) usually takes the more formal approach and looks at rules sec., so having someone (CoE member perhaps) taking merely the wider ramifications for the game into account could be useful. Adding this as a step late in the process of decissionmaking/ruling seems ok, since most people (not even regular CoE members :wink: ) lay a close watch on the NetRep discussions, and aisb there's no need to interfere in such discussion per se.
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2626
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: The NetRep's Job

Post by Bandobras Took » Fri Mar 04, 2011 2:12 pm

And again, I wouldn't mind rulings either way. It's the consistency issue rather than any specific ruling/decision. You mentioned not requiring One Ring movement at ICE-sanctioned events. Were there ICE-sanctioned events at which playing strike assignment cards on auto-attacks was allowed? How does this measure apply to one and not the other?

It's this above all that leads me to "heckle" in my effort to understand the rules. Jambo makes the same point in the character play discussion thread on the NetRep board. The game needs consistency to be healthy, when a person hears "Principle X applies here" and says, "Oh, then Principle X applies there," it doesn't do much for the game to hear, "No, it doesn't, because . . . I say so."
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

miguel
Posts: 659
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Re: The NetRep's Job

Post by miguel » Fri Mar 04, 2011 3:21 pm

Thorsten the Traveller wrote:...so having someone (CoE member perhaps) taking merely the wider ramifications for the game into account could be useful.
I personally try to do this every single time and as thoroughly as possible, but like I said, I'd be happy to give CoE members a sneak peek before a Digest gets published. Extra pairs of eyes never hurt.

@Ben: The issue with facing automatic-attacks really didn't leave much wiggle room (nobody wanted to rule that way), but luckily CoE errata is around the corner, so we can start fixing such things. I must point out to you that the NetRep is not a single person through time. I can hardly be held personally accountable or asked to explain some train of thought from Digest #43, now can I (this doesn't mean I wouldn't be able to, just seems unfair)? So let's focus on fixing what we find broken from the past, and you can heckle me when I get the future Digests out, okay? :wink:

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2626
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: The NetRep's Job

Post by Bandobras Took » Fri Mar 04, 2011 6:18 pm

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 – 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)
ICE-Sanctioned Events
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.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

marcos
Posts: 2010
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 5:41 pm
Location: Córdoba, Argentina

Re: The NetRep's Job

Post by marcos » Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:29 pm


User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2626
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: The NetRep's Job

Post by Bandobras Took » Sat Mar 05, 2011 11:36 am

So the Council doesn't actually appoint the NetRep or approve a NetRep? What the devil does "maintain" in the charter mean, then?
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

Locked

Return to “Council Business - Agenda Items”