honestly, i dont like the idea of having a special errata team. there is already a NetRep team containing rules experts. its up to them to discuss the whole matter and finally make decisions if or if not go for an erratum (on a card and/or rule).Powers:
• The Council shall issue errata or rules changes as needed. A team of three experts will be appointed to discuss all rules changes. Proposed errata from this team shall be placed for an open vote before the community, and shall be ratified by a two-thirds majority after a voting period of three weeks. The Chair shall be responsible for announcing, maintaining, and monitoring the vote. Rules so ratified shall be considered in force when announced in the next Newsletter from the Chair.
• The Council shall maintain at least one spokesperson during each session whose duties shall consist of clarifying rules, interpreting card texts, adjudicating rules disputes, clarifying gameplay questions posed to the Council, adjudicating conflicts between cards, updating the Universal Rules Document, and forwarding any appropriate issues to the Errata Team. The title of said office shall be NetRep. The NetRep shall publish a rulings digest bimonthly as well as update the Universal Rules Document. If no new rulings are to be made, the NetRep shall inform the Chair of such.
but i think the COE should also be involved, quoting eric:
couldnt say it betterWhen it comes to errata, I also think that we need to involve rules-masters.
We as CoE should act as the parliament, the general managers, we decide on the course of action and grant authority to decissions, but that doesn't mean we have all knowledge of what's best for the game. So let's acquire that knowledge.
finally i also think we should have a period for playtesting before issuing any errata. but thats another story in another thread.