GonzoGarbanzo wrote:
But hey, I could be wrong.
Well, in my view, in cases where you could argue either way, nobody can be right or wrong. There's just two different valid interpretations. It can only become right or wrong if RRG clarifies which one they want to make the right one.
RidiQles wrote:
What I am concerned about is the lack of consistency in the rulings. If we are told one thing in the forums and then someone is told something different a few months later, then that puts into question the finality of the rulings... which undermines the whole clarification process.
I think it's OK that the rules are never final - all living games are always works in progress, I think. I'm certainly used to companies giving one ruling, and then coming back and reversing that ruling later on if they came up with a better idea.
But I don't like it if they give one ruling one place, and a different ruling in another place, at the same time. That makes have one consolidated official ruleset impossible. Since most games developers usually want to have one consolidated official ruleset, for the purposes of marketing and promotion if nothing else, I think we can only assume that one of the rulings is an error. Errors can always happen.
To combat this, I think it would be helpful if RRG, or even just us in the community, agree that one specific "place" has preferential status in terms of communication of rulings. For example the rules forum here. Then if a ruling in the rules forum and a ruling in a private email conflict, the rules forum wins until the conflict is sorted out.