Proposal for NetRep's system

Errata issued by the CoE, open discussion of candidate rules for errata, and submissions for the Annual Rules Vote.
User avatar
kodi
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue May 22, 2018 12:22 pm

Re: Proposal for Rulings Work

Post by kodi »

Hi guys. We were waiting for Theo's opinion,but I don't know if he will say something.

Then, thanks to Chris and Konrad for replying. I don't understand why nobody answer to Manuel proposal. The Ichabod test was fun, but I don't undersand conclusions.

Two simple questions for everybody:

1. Do you like the proposal and method to work as team?

2. Do you think Manuel should be the judge or not?

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?

Thanks
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3971
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Proposal for NetRep's system

Post by Konrad Klar »

kodi wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 11:52 am I don't understand why nobody answer to Manuel proposal.
Speaking for myself: because I am not player really, rather guy speaking about rules.

Anyway, proposal looks good.
As player I am (and I was) ready to respect any interpretations, rulings, modifications made by organizers of given party in which I am (I was) participating.
After all the interpretations, rulings, modifications are local. They do not oblige anyone not participating in given party, league, or system of (interpreting of) rules.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
angblung
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 8:33 pm

Re: Proposal for NetRep's system

Post by angblung »

Hello, I haven't been here for a long time.
I was a fairly active player approximately 12 years ago and only in 2020 was I able to get back into the game a bit.

If no one else applies...

Manuel's proposal seems interesting to me and likely to be carried out on good terms.
I think that Manuel has shown great dedication both to knowing the rules and to providing coherent responses in particular situations (arguing his position very well).

I hope this initiative can contribute positively to the community of this beautiful game.

Cheers
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2631
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Proposal for Rulings Work

Post by CDavis7M »

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.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3971
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Proposal for NetRep's system

Post by Konrad Klar »

CDavis7M wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 6:18 am 12. For the Balrog of Moria, does the +2 prowess bonus if Galadriel is in Lorien apply to itself?

There are a few points of confusion. (1) The Balrog of Moria effect to give +2 prowess to attacks is in a separate sentence from the effect that depends on whether Galadriel is at Lorien (which makes Lorien a free-hold). (2) The effect that depends on Galadriel’s presence comes into play when she is NOT at Lorien (or not in play), not when she is at Lorien. (3) The +2 prowess bonus applies to all automatic attacks at sites in Redhorn Gate, Moria is in Redhorn Gate, and the Balrog of Moria creates an automatic attack, so it does get the +2 prowess bonus.
Actually Ichabod wrote, CDavis7M quoted.

In addition, unless Galadriel is at Lórien, or she is not in play, Lórien is considered a [-me_fh-] (for the purposes of healing and playing hazards).

So it has no effect if Galadriel is not in play. It has effect if Galadriel is in play but not at Lórien.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Manuel
Posts: 331
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 11:31 am

Re: Proposal for NetRep's system

Post by Manuel »

Hello everyone and thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Kodi and I have spoken about it and we've decided that it's better to set this proposal aside for the moment. On one hand, we feel like this proposal didn't get enough approval or generate enough enthusiasm. On the other (and more important too) there will be elections in a couple of months and that means a new Rules committee should emerge, so we think it's a good idea to wait for the authority there to decide what's best.

Until now, I feel the wisest move is to wait for the CoE's legitimacy and not to do anything as a NetRep. I'm editing the announcement in the NetRep's corner.
www.manuelcabezali.com
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1319
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Proposal for Rulings Work

Post by Theo »

kodi wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 11:52 am We were waiting for Theo's opinion
I appreciate the adaptability in approach your team is demonstrating, but base concerns that I tried to communicate previously about motivation alignment are unchanged. Private conversations with Kodi in fact solidified my perspective that to the extent that CoE has seemed and will foreseeably continue to pander to the populace wanting concise conclusions over understanding ICE (along with any ambiguities they left), my time will be better spent outside of CoE politics. I think such a role for CoE serves that populace well, if perhaps myopically, and so I doubt that anyone should---or could---alter it to any significant extent. I would rather focus on other initiatives for supporting other populaces than barking up the wrong tree, as independently as needed to mitigate player confusion. I had thought several of us had made great strides in turning CoE's perspective over the last few years, but there is still clearly an entrenched, uncommunicative posse holding to the old CoE mindsets.

Like CDavis7M said:
CDavis7M wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 12:36 am
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.
Perfect example: I think the ARV was a horrible mistake, and always tried to dissuade Jabberwock from it. But it is a great solution for those that just want a decision and also value the spirit of democracy.
Manuel wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 1:06 pm Yes, I know the ARV, it's a great initiative, although it's a pity it stopped in 2018.
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make... Cautious skill!
Post Reply

Return to “Rules & Errata”