This announcement has moved to the NetRep"s corner, with some personal added information:
viewtopic.php?f=91&t=4696
New NetRep Team
Congratulations. But I'm a bit confused because some of terminology used in your post goes against how ICE used those terms.
So if this new team is not in communication with the designers and the goal is to give an "official answer," then I am confused as to why the team chose the title of "NetRep." Words have meaning and a lot of confusion about MECCG comes from not recognizing that.
----------
Presumably the end goal of any effort on MECCG rules is to understand the game and use that to reduce confusion among the players. So maybe it's worth mentioning where I see confusion and how it arises.
When I see confusion about the rules, most of it comes from not knowing where all of the rules are because they are spread across Starter and Standard rules and then spread across the various expansion rules (most people see to forget all of The Dragons clarifications). And the tournament rules are separate but "everyone" plays by them. I see this in discussions about hazard limit, discussion about Ringwraith Followers, Balrog movement, and many many FW rules, it goes on and on.
And while finding the rules is a task in and of itself, many times the rule is outdated because of course the rules were clarified or even changed overtime. There is a similar issue with the Player Guide comments -- some of them are outdated, or even wrong. And the CRF has this same issue, some of the rulings are outdated. And while the CRF was overhauled a couple times, the latest version (15) had numerous versions since the last overhaul and it several outdated (or wrong) rulings. But it's hard to know whether a rule is outdated or not unless you read the rulings and recognize what changed and why. A lot of confusion I see comes from not noticing the changes or from not knowing why the change was made. I see come up with the on-guard rules, company vs company combat, etc etc.
And then even if someone finds all of the rules and recognizes which are outdated and which are "correct," they still are not quite there. I see a lot of confusion come from misunderstanding what the CRF is and what it does. Mistaking it as a rule rather than a clarification of a rule (which is almost never mentioned directly); and forgetting that the statements are presented out of context--they are a response to a specific question which is not provided. I see this come up all the time like for dragon automatic attacks, ringwraith and fallen wizard rules, on guard rules, and all over the place. Even this "New NetRep Team" post.
And then even finding the rules, the changes, and recognizing the CRF for what it is, I see a lot of confusion come from not recognizing basic reading comprehension techniques taught in 9th grade. Failure to recognize the context of previous statements, context from the fact that this is a game with mechanics, and failure to recognize the author's purpose. Often a single sentence is grabbed out of context and presented as the rule but no one can be bothered to read the following sentence let alone the section header, let alone the introduction statements in the parent header, let alone go back and read the corresponding statements in the Starter Rules or put the expansion rules in the context of the base set, and on and on. But it's not easy. I make an effort to read and recognize the context and sometimes I miss things or only later recognize the significance. There are just too many rules. Just last week I read context from MEWH and now I understand why some people were confused various MEWH topics like half orcs, or trophies, or orc scouts, etc.
Another cause of confusion is not following ICE's ruling framework and the golden rule "if it isn't there, it isn't there." The rules and rulings make sense and are consistent. But many of the old CoE "NetRep" rulings are wrong and cause confusion because the NetRep misunderstood the rules and made inconsistent rulings that led to further confusion. Sometimes the CoE NetRep didn't bother to read the card under question. And they almost never bothered to present the text of the rule, let alone explain the context within which the rule is given. So no wonder if their ruling was off-base. And I don't remember seeing much discussion or recognition by the CoE of ICE's rule changes. Instead, several of the past CoE NetRep rulings seemed to directly ignore the rules to come up with something that "made sense" (if you misunderstood the rules). But ICE explicitly always ruled in favor of the actual text and consistently went against what "made sense."
Ah yeah, and there is confusion about what "errata" is, especially compared to a "clarification" even though ICE explicitly gave the differences. And there is even confusion about the word "errata" in general. Like the CoE issuing things that are not errata but called it errata. Or issuing errata without enough specifics to be errata, though ICE was sometimes guilty of the same (Traitor).
In fact, many of the CoE NetRep rulings directly contradict the rules (despite several people pointing this out). And it wouldn't be so bad if this were just a mistake, but the most of these types of rulings favor the cards and strategies used in top competitive decks by top competitive players. And the NetReps themselves were competitive players making these bogus rulings on the decks they play (bogus rulings on In the Heard of His Realm, minion additional M/H phases and River, Radagast's Blackbird, etc. etc). Regardless of actual motives, it just looks bad.
Many much of the CoE NetRep's problems came from their beginnings. Back when ICE lost the license there were still many players but some of the more vocal ones didn't understand the rules and they would constantly complain to Ichabod that they didn't make sense. And I used to think similar things myself because I actually spent the time to read the rules with an understanding of context and recognition of the changes. And in discussions on the old Silent Tower mailing list you could see people complain about Ichabod and his rulings when he was just letting them know how the game worked and some people were determined not to understand and basically ran Ichabod off the mailing list. I can understand that he didn't want to spend hours trying to help people that didn't want it.
I would read questions and discussion between some of the CoE NetReps and players and I would wonder how they could have forgotten about the ICE rulings. But later I realized that when the CoE started off they explicitly had the goal of adopting rulings that misunderstand the rules (not how they saw it but still), and seemingly for competitive advantage though actual motives can never be known and don't matter. So it is no wonder there is long standing confusion.
It's too bad the players didn't listen to Ichabod. He was usually right. Though even Ichabod was wrong here and there and he would come back with corrections or sometimes rule changes from the Designers. But even among the Designers there was not always agreement. Coleman liked the simulation aspects while Mike was more focused on the rules and mechanics. And of course in their day there was a great concern over financials and too much errata had killed off more than one CCG. So part of the confusion comes from strong reluctance to issue any errata. This was explicitly a reason from ICE but it shows because most of the "best" errata that fixed the most hated issues (like the Dragon hoard ruling) only came after the game was essentially dead since LoRE was being developed. So this business dilemma has also caused confusion for the game.
It's kind of funny really. Because even with so many places for confusion, 99% of the game can be played and enjoyed just by reading the card in your hand without worry about all of this stuff.
----------
I have different ideas and projects on how to clear confusion. But I am interested to see what you come up with.
----------
Some history:
But in MECCG a "NetRep" explicitly does NOT give official answers. That is not their job. The ICE NetReps were never rules arbiters. The term "NetRep" is combination of two words: Internet and Representative. For ICE, the "NetRep" was their customer service representative on the 'Net who answered silly questions so that the designers did not have to. And they would pay that person with booster packs (I hope someone is sending you booster packs). For any real rules questions the NetRep would forward questions to the designers for their official answer. Are you in contact with Mike Reynolds? Is he letting you know how the game works?
So if this new team is not in communication with the designers and the goal is to give an "official answer," then I am confused as to why the team chose the title of "NetRep." Words have meaning and a lot of confusion about MECCG comes from not recognizing that.
A "digest" is not something that can be revised. A digest is a periodical of condensed pieces of writing published elsewhere. For MECCG, the digests are collections of rulings from the official place for rulings. So then, what about all of the rulings that are not in the digests because they were published in ICE"s official place for rulings to begin with?
Yes, it is pretty complex. I've looked into it.
I have already looked into this. There is no need to do this for those given Digests. Have you looked into it? Or maybe there is a misunderstanding of how the CRF works.
Are they official? Because most of them contradict the actual rules, which are official.
It's a good idea to to know the most recent text but this is not what the CRF did -- Collected Rulings File.
----------
Presumably the end goal of any effort on MECCG rules is to understand the game and use that to reduce confusion among the players. So maybe it's worth mentioning where I see confusion and how it arises.
When I see confusion about the rules, most of it comes from not knowing where all of the rules are because they are spread across Starter and Standard rules and then spread across the various expansion rules (most people see to forget all of The Dragons clarifications). And the tournament rules are separate but "everyone" plays by them. I see this in discussions about hazard limit, discussion about Ringwraith Followers, Balrog movement, and many many FW rules, it goes on and on.
And while finding the rules is a task in and of itself, many times the rule is outdated because of course the rules were clarified or even changed overtime. There is a similar issue with the Player Guide comments -- some of them are outdated, or even wrong. And the CRF has this same issue, some of the rulings are outdated. And while the CRF was overhauled a couple times, the latest version (15) had numerous versions since the last overhaul and it several outdated (or wrong) rulings. But it's hard to know whether a rule is outdated or not unless you read the rulings and recognize what changed and why. A lot of confusion I see comes from not noticing the changes or from not knowing why the change was made. I see come up with the on-guard rules, company vs company combat, etc etc.
And then even if someone finds all of the rules and recognizes which are outdated and which are "correct," they still are not quite there. I see a lot of confusion come from misunderstanding what the CRF is and what it does. Mistaking it as a rule rather than a clarification of a rule (which is almost never mentioned directly); and forgetting that the statements are presented out of context--they are a response to a specific question which is not provided. I see this come up all the time like for dragon automatic attacks, ringwraith and fallen wizard rules, on guard rules, and all over the place. Even this "New NetRep Team" post.
And then even finding the rules, the changes, and recognizing the CRF for what it is, I see a lot of confusion come from not recognizing basic reading comprehension techniques taught in 9th grade. Failure to recognize the context of previous statements, context from the fact that this is a game with mechanics, and failure to recognize the author's purpose. Often a single sentence is grabbed out of context and presented as the rule but no one can be bothered to read the following sentence let alone the section header, let alone the introduction statements in the parent header, let alone go back and read the corresponding statements in the Starter Rules or put the expansion rules in the context of the base set, and on and on. But it's not easy. I make an effort to read and recognize the context and sometimes I miss things or only later recognize the significance. There are just too many rules. Just last week I read context from MEWH and now I understand why some people were confused various MEWH topics like half orcs, or trophies, or orc scouts, etc.
Another cause of confusion is not following ICE's ruling framework and the golden rule "if it isn't there, it isn't there." The rules and rulings make sense and are consistent. But many of the old CoE "NetRep" rulings are wrong and cause confusion because the NetRep misunderstood the rules and made inconsistent rulings that led to further confusion. Sometimes the CoE NetRep didn't bother to read the card under question. And they almost never bothered to present the text of the rule, let alone explain the context within which the rule is given. So no wonder if their ruling was off-base. And I don't remember seeing much discussion or recognition by the CoE of ICE's rule changes. Instead, several of the past CoE NetRep rulings seemed to directly ignore the rules to come up with something that "made sense" (if you misunderstood the rules). But ICE explicitly always ruled in favor of the actual text and consistently went against what "made sense."
Ah yeah, and there is confusion about what "errata" is, especially compared to a "clarification" even though ICE explicitly gave the differences. And there is even confusion about the word "errata" in general. Like the CoE issuing things that are not errata but called it errata. Or issuing errata without enough specifics to be errata, though ICE was sometimes guilty of the same (Traitor).
In fact, many of the CoE NetRep rulings directly contradict the rules (despite several people pointing this out). And it wouldn't be so bad if this were just a mistake, but the most of these types of rulings favor the cards and strategies used in top competitive decks by top competitive players. And the NetReps themselves were competitive players making these bogus rulings on the decks they play (bogus rulings on In the Heard of His Realm, minion additional M/H phases and River, Radagast's Blackbird, etc. etc). Regardless of actual motives, it just looks bad.
Many much of the CoE NetRep's problems came from their beginnings. Back when ICE lost the license there were still many players but some of the more vocal ones didn't understand the rules and they would constantly complain to Ichabod that they didn't make sense. And I used to think similar things myself because I actually spent the time to read the rules with an understanding of context and recognition of the changes. And in discussions on the old Silent Tower mailing list you could see people complain about Ichabod and his rulings when he was just letting them know how the game worked and some people were determined not to understand and basically ran Ichabod off the mailing list. I can understand that he didn't want to spend hours trying to help people that didn't want it.
I would read questions and discussion between some of the CoE NetReps and players and I would wonder how they could have forgotten about the ICE rulings. But later I realized that when the CoE started off they explicitly had the goal of adopting rulings that misunderstand the rules (not how they saw it but still), and seemingly for competitive advantage though actual motives can never be known and don't matter. So it is no wonder there is long standing confusion.
It's too bad the players didn't listen to Ichabod. He was usually right. Though even Ichabod was wrong here and there and he would come back with corrections or sometimes rule changes from the Designers. But even among the Designers there was not always agreement. Coleman liked the simulation aspects while Mike was more focused on the rules and mechanics. And of course in their day there was a great concern over financials and too much errata had killed off more than one CCG. So part of the confusion comes from strong reluctance to issue any errata. This was explicitly a reason from ICE but it shows because most of the "best" errata that fixed the most hated issues (like the Dragon hoard ruling) only came after the game was essentially dead since LoRE was being developed. So this business dilemma has also caused confusion for the game.
It's kind of funny really. Because even with so many places for confusion, 99% of the game can be played and enjoyed just by reading the card in your hand without worry about all of this stuff.
----------
I have different ideas and projects on how to clear confusion. But I am interested to see what you come up with.
----------
Some history:
- Attachments
-
- WhatANetRepDoes.png (298.63 KiB) Viewed 1591 times
-
Konrad Klar
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 4352
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
- Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
By their nature. Corrected text contradicts with erroneous text.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
Thanks for the input. I'll try to be precise in my answers:
I'm a Spanish 40-year-old dude, I have a 4-year-old kid and a full-time job as a musician and producer. I've been playing card games since the late 90s, and MECCG was my first card game ever. It's still the game I love the most. I've been in and out of the game since I started playing, but there's one thing that's always driven me (and the community) mad: rules confusion. And I want to help with that, as imperfect as I can be. I think I am good with rulings, and I also have a nice group of friends supporting me.
What I mean here is, I have an unlimited amount of love for this game BUT I have a limited amount of time for devoting to this task. And I intend to invest this time in clarifying rules, not entering sterile endless debates with other people.
ICE lost its license more than 20 years ago. Now it's 2022 and the CoE is the one thing that is closer to being official. I've always followed the rulings from the CoE because they were official (in the sense that everyone I knew was playing by those rules). So yeah, I guess the meaning of the word "NetRep" has changed over time, the different interpretations of how the game is have changed the way people play, etc. Years have passed and the world's changed. I see no sense in comparing it to how it was when ICE was around because ICE is no longer around. Put it this way: the CoE is now the closest thing to ICE that exists.
***
So,
If you don't agree with the so-called NetRep approach, you can propose yourself to the CoE and see how it goes. I would be happy to have someone so savvy doing this job.
If the problem is that you don't like how the CoE is doing things, you can nominate yourself for the next CoE elections (they should run them very soon), see how it is to get to work with other people and change things "from the inside". I would totally do it if I wasn't the NetRep already.
Or, if you don't believe in the officiality of the CoE, maybe you could create some other alternative platform that represents your way of seeing things. Because there needs to be some kind of officiality.
In any case, being constructive and respecting other people's work and ideas is important. Especially when we get absolutely nothing from it and do it only for the love of this game.
***
With all this being said, don't expect me to take the time to answer as I did with this last post, because I'm not going to. The spare time I have, I plan on spending it working on my task as a "NetRep" and being helpful to the community, until the CoE, or the community, decides it's better to have someone other than me, which I would totally understand.
I'm a Spanish 40-year-old dude, I have a 4-year-old kid and a full-time job as a musician and producer. I've been playing card games since the late 90s, and MECCG was my first card game ever. It's still the game I love the most. I've been in and out of the game since I started playing, but there's one thing that's always driven me (and the community) mad: rules confusion. And I want to help with that, as imperfect as I can be. I think I am good with rulings, and I also have a nice group of friends supporting me.
What I mean here is, I have an unlimited amount of love for this game BUT I have a limited amount of time for devoting to this task. And I intend to invest this time in clarifying rules, not entering sterile endless debates with other people.
ICE lost its license more than 20 years ago. Now it's 2022 and the CoE is the one thing that is closer to being official. I've always followed the rulings from the CoE because they were official (in the sense that everyone I knew was playing by those rules). So yeah, I guess the meaning of the word "NetRep" has changed over time, the different interpretations of how the game is have changed the way people play, etc. Years have passed and the world's changed. I see no sense in comparing it to how it was when ICE was around because ICE is no longer around. Put it this way: the CoE is now the closest thing to ICE that exists.
***
So,
If you don't agree with the so-called NetRep approach, you can propose yourself to the CoE and see how it goes. I would be happy to have someone so savvy doing this job.
If the problem is that you don't like how the CoE is doing things, you can nominate yourself for the next CoE elections (they should run them very soon), see how it is to get to work with other people and change things "from the inside". I would totally do it if I wasn't the NetRep already.
Or, if you don't believe in the officiality of the CoE, maybe you could create some other alternative platform that represents your way of seeing things. Because there needs to be some kind of officiality.
In any case, being constructive and respecting other people's work and ideas is important. Especially when we get absolutely nothing from it and do it only for the love of this game.
***
With all this being said, don't expect me to take the time to answer as I did with this last post, because I'm not going to. The spare time I have, I plan on spending it working on my task as a "NetRep" and being helpful to the community, until the CoE, or the community, decides it's better to have someone other than me, which I would totally understand.
www.meccg.com
Here's the problem: some people (and some I play with) still remember the ICE rulings and they play that way, not the CoE way. So when I came back to MECCG and played with players remembering the ICE rulings, there were discrepancies with the CoE rulings. And it's not just ICE rulings vs CoE rulings. Many of the CoE rulings just have no basis in the rules text, which everyone can read.
But those other people are also investing their time clarifying the rules for the love of the game -- maybe more time than you.
Well, if the job of a position is to determine the accurate meaning of words I don't see why the title of the position should be a misnomer based on an apparently misunderstanding of the position. If the job is to answer questions from customers on the Internet, then sure. But if the job is to arbitrate rules disputes then I bet there is a more accurate title.Manuel wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 9:34 pm I guess the meaning of the word "NetRep" has changed over time, the different interpretations of how the game is have changed the way people play, etc. Years have passed and the world's changed. I see no sense in comparing it to how it was when ICE was around because ICE is no longer around.
done.
Sure but if so then there's no need to be dismissive of other people's "sterile endless debates." And we are talking about rules. We are not talking about someone's own belief that only affects them. It affects others. And the basis of differences comes from reading comprehension. And some people, who got absolutely nothing from it and only did it for love of the game, have made the rules even more confusing in an effect to make them less confusing. Cases in point: CoE Netrep rulings, CoE ARV, and the URD. Misunderstanding the rules or how rulings work by taking things out of context or not following the changes over time leads to contradicts with other rules, making those confusing as well.
Thank you for your thankless work. I'm interested to see how well you do.
----------
By the way, not only is the CoE Council not active, they haven't bothered to hold an election. And when they did hold a vote for the CoE Netrep they did not even bother to follow their own Charter provisions for appointing a NetRep.
So is it "CoE official" if a handful of people who are not council members vote to appoint someone to a position using a process that is not the official process for making that appointment?
I fail to understand what is happening here. After a very long period without any rules arbiter, finally someone has taken the floor and... this happens?
CDavis, I don't think anybody here doubts your knowledge of the game, but luckily you are not the only one, there are plenty of people here that started playing in 1995 (myself included). The fact that one of those players decided to step ahead and offer his time and effort should be something to thank, not to receive with suspicion.
I totally understand being a bit unrest with changes, but the community should have more than just a place to talk (this forum), some kind of "official figure", and that is the NetRep. Not a perfect man, not a perfect election... but hey, before that we had nothing.
Also, English, as any other language used to communicate humans (and not machines) is always open to interpretation in some degree. A sentence could be understood one way or the other just by a slight pronunciation change but the same wording. There is room for other opinions. The absence of ICE for more than 20 years ago had led us here, trying to make sense of rules and mechanics that are by no means perfect. You cannot program a machine to play MECCG, and that's because the rules have some looseness.
Let's welcome someone committed to the project and try to ease his job instead of throwing all his tea overboard
CDavis, I don't think anybody here doubts your knowledge of the game, but luckily you are not the only one, there are plenty of people here that started playing in 1995 (myself included). The fact that one of those players decided to step ahead and offer his time and effort should be something to thank, not to receive with suspicion.
I totally understand being a bit unrest with changes, but the community should have more than just a place to talk (this forum), some kind of "official figure", and that is the NetRep. Not a perfect man, not a perfect election... but hey, before that we had nothing.
Also, English, as any other language used to communicate humans (and not machines) is always open to interpretation in some degree. A sentence could be understood one way or the other just by a slight pronunciation change but the same wording. There is room for other opinions. The absence of ICE for more than 20 years ago had led us here, trying to make sense of rules and mechanics that are by no means perfect. You cannot program a machine to play MECCG, and that's because the rules have some looseness.
Let's welcome someone committed to the project and try to ease his job instead of throwing all his tea overboard
C'mon, not the Elves of Lindon AGAIN...
I am happy that people are willing to commit time to the game. But I'm a bit confused as well. I explained why the original post seemed to be misunderstanding the terms "NetRep" and "Digest." I explained how ICE used the terms and provided sources. And then I (helpfully?) provided a list of points of confusion I see in the rules.
---------
But why should I not be skeptical in someone who has answered 2 or 3 rules question in the past 11 years (that I can find)? Though I admit that many great players don't bother to post online. Yet, for someone that has not committed time to rules discussions online, Manuel is quite dismissive of all of the players that have dedicated hours to actually discussing points of confusion in the the rules, calling it "sterile endless debates." As if all of these other players are not thanklessly dedicating time for the love of the game.
And then the NetRep presents a list of things to do but I can tell that he has spent little time on some of it or at least misunderstands how the CRF worked, and would be duplicating efforts already completed by the players that do post here.
A) there is no need to incorporate the rulings digests that are not in the CRF because they CRF does not incorporate rulings digests in this way and even if it did there is no need to on those cases if you look; (B) There is no need to incorporate the CoE-issued errata because it adds nothing (my copy of Leaflock already says Redhorn Gate, not sure why CoE issued errata for this; Malady may already target an opponent's character; CoE errata 8 is just wrong, discarding Daelomin at Home to increase the hazard limit does not remove the automatic attack from Irerock, etc etc); and (C) incorporating the most recent text from the challenge decks is also not something a "collected rulings file" collects.
----------
If the NetRep wants to come in and clear up all the rules, please do. But for now, tengo dudas con el representante de atención al cliente de Internet.
---------
But why should I not be skeptical in someone who has answered 2 or 3 rules question in the past 11 years (that I can find)? Though I admit that many great players don't bother to post online. Yet, for someone that has not committed time to rules discussions online, Manuel is quite dismissive of all of the players that have dedicated hours to actually discussing points of confusion in the the rules, calling it "sterile endless debates." As if all of these other players are not thanklessly dedicating time for the love of the game.
And then the NetRep presents a list of things to do but I can tell that he has spent little time on some of it or at least misunderstands how the CRF worked, and would be duplicating efforts already completed by the players that do post here.
A) there is no need to incorporate the rulings digests that are not in the CRF because they CRF does not incorporate rulings digests in this way and even if it did there is no need to on those cases if you look; (B) There is no need to incorporate the CoE-issued errata because it adds nothing (my copy of Leaflock already says Redhorn Gate, not sure why CoE issued errata for this; Malady may already target an opponent's character; CoE errata 8 is just wrong, discarding Daelomin at Home to increase the hazard limit does not remove the automatic attack from Irerock, etc etc); and (C) incorporating the most recent text from the challenge decks is also not something a "collected rulings file" collects.
----------
Maybe. But I've found there there are very few rules or situations that are open for "opinion" and that most confusion comes from not considering the context, which to be fair is often spread across several sections or even books, or from interpreting a word in a way that doesn't seem to follow any definition or follow from the game mechanics. Words have meaning and ICE has provided the framework (CRF Introduction) for interpreting the rules.
If the NetRep wants to come in and clear up all the rules, please do. But for now, tengo dudas con el representante de atención al cliente de Internet.
Seriously? Manuel was a Level 2 judge back when JCP was active. He was an active member of old NetRep teams (which by the way has a private subforum which you can't read, therefore you can't know about what he has or has not discussed online). And he was also a member of the Council of Elrond during its eight session. The fact that you appeared online in the forums around 2018 or so, doesn't mean that other people didn't contribute to the game in the past. Where were you in the past 20 years? what are your contributions to the community other than endless topics that leads to nowhere? What did you do to make things better?CDavis7M wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 10:38 pm But why should I not be skeptical in someone who has answered 2 or 3 rules question in the past 11 years (that I can find)? Though I admit that many great players don't bother to post online. Yet, for someone that has not committed time to rules discussions online, Manuel is quite dismissive of all of the players that have dedicated hours to actually discussing points of confusion in the the rules, calling it "sterile endless debates." As if all of these other players are not thanklessly dedicating time for the love of the game.
Oh, do you mean this NetRep subfoum: viewforum.php?f=12
I've read all of it. Also, I said "answered 2 or 3 rules questions" not "posted comments in a private subforum which no one besides cdavis7m reads."
I never suggested that. There seems to be a reading comprehension issue. I can see Manuel contributes to MECCG tournaments. I said I have not seen his contributions in answering rules questions. I never said that he didn't contribute to the game as a whole. When I wrote the words I choose them for their meaning. And my main point was that it's odd for him to be dismissive of online rules discussion when he is showing up to decide some rules.
It is endless topics? I think it's quite conclusive. I take the time to read the rules, post the rules, reference the rulings, and describe the changes to the rules overtime. When past CoE NetReps would make rulings they often would not even read the card text, let alone the rules, and I hardly ever saw an explanation. But I get it. There is a lot to read and it takes reading comprehension... That's my contribution.
As for MECCG community projects, here's a list of things that I have actually done and shared with the online community:
- I designed MECCG rune dice that many people seem to enjoy (viewtopic.php?f=124&t=3830&hilit=rune+dice)
- I've written a set of beginner rules and created a set of 3 beginner decks that I've given away for free to several new players on the facebook group. And I'll be giving more away.
- I've presented the ICE rulings that no one else bothered to read for 20 years before I did
- I wrote dozens of posts corrected errors in the URD (viewtopic.php?f=68&t=3324&start=90)
- I have taken the time to write hundreds of posts explaining why the COE NetReps were wrong (viewtopic.php?f=68&t=4170)
- I've explaining the timing rules and active/passive conditions in a way that no one seems to do before
- I've made hundreds of posts discussing the rules here.
- Participated in tournaments held on CardNum
- Particulate on the facebook group, upload rules files and other helpful documents.
- Answer questions on BGG and upload files and images.
- Discuss rules on the Discord server
It seems like people are expecting me to know all of the things that Manuel has done. I have nothing against Manuel. I just have not seen him around here. Some people are friends with him and that's a nice thing. But how can someone be thankful and grateful when a stranger shows up with a list of things to do and nothing done. I will of course be grateful for efforts actually made. If it were me, I would have made efforts first. Especially if I was just offering to copy and paste other peoples work.
3a) The dutch council already incorporated the psot CRF-15 digests into the CRF. But as I explained, this only includes rulings made outside of the official place for rulings. https://web.archive.org/web/20210619093 ... meccg.net/
3b) There is already a list of CoE errata: viewtopic.php?f=103&t=3541
3c) There is already a list of most recent card text which started from a discussion I raised on discord viewtopic.php?f=68&t=3325&hilit=magical+harp&start=30
If the NetRep needs help copying and pasting other peoples work then I don't know what we're doing here.
well, no. It is not that one of course. This subforum is for the community to have a place to be in touch with the NetRep. The team has its own board. I myself was also a part of it in the Mikko era.CDavis7M wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 11:09 pmOh, do you mean this NetRep subfoum: viewforum.php?f=12
I've read all of it. Also, I said "answered 2 or 3 rules questions" not "posted comments in a private subforum which no one besides cdavis7m reads."
You think, that is the issue... it seems to be only you to think that such posts are conclussive... i don't see many people posting here since your appearance other than konrad, theo, and sometimes b_took.CDavis7M wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 11:09 pmIt is endless topics? I think it's quite conclusive. I take the time to read the rules and post the rules and reference the rulings and describe the changes to the rules overtime. There is a lot to read and it takes reading comprehension... That's my contribution.
you seem to be missing the point that:CDavis7M wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 11:09 pm As for MECCG community projects, here's a list of things that I have actually done and shared with the online community:
- I designed MECCG rune dice that many people seem to enjoy (viewtopic.php?f=124&t=3830&hilit=rune+dice)
- I've written a set of beginner rules and created a set of 3 beginner decks that I've given away for free to several new players on the facebook group. And I'll be giving more away.
- I've presented the ICE rulings that no one else bothered to read before I did
- I wrote dozens of posts corrected errors in the URD (viewtopic.php?f=68&t=3324&start=90)
- I have taken the time to write hundreds of posts explaining why the COE NetReps were wrong (viewtopic.php?f=68&t=4170)
- I've explaining the timing rules and active/passive conditions in a way that no one seems to do before
- I've made hundreds of posts discussing the rules here.
- Participated in tournaments held on CardNum
- Particulate on the facebook group, upload rules files and other helpful documents.
- Answer questions on BGG and upload files and images.
A- The begginer rules aren't needed, as you said earlier every rule is already written... there only needs to be comprehension of them, right?
B- I wonder how do you know nobody did read such documents? Are you omnipresent?
C- The URD was a fanmade project by b_took, considering it something "official" or CoE stamped is a mistake. It is unnofficial. Therefore putting its errors on the hands of people that had nothing to do with it, is another mistake. The URD had a lot of subjective oppinions.
D- Hundreads of posts are not needed. The community needs concrete information. "Hundreads of posts" and "endless discussions" at this point sounds pretty much like the same to most of us, anything but concrete information is useless.
E- Explained to whom? What way is that?
F- Again with hundreads... be concise
G- I wonder how participating in tournaments is contributing to the community? I will give you credit to the guy hosting the tournament, you wouldn't be participating at all without him.
H- You fail to see that the world coordinating body for the Middle-earth Collectible Card Game, is the CoE, and the main focus of information was, and should be here. Board Game Geek is pretty much a secondary community if you want to call it that way
Of course you dont know, because you weren't around but the last 4 years instead of the last 20. Of all the players in the game, Manuel is probably the most capable one to do this task.CDavis7M wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 11:09 pmIt seems like people are expecting me to know all of the things that Manuel has done. I have nothing against Manuel. I just have not seen him around here. Some people are friends with him and that's a nice thing. But how can someone be thankful and grateful when a stranger shows up with a list of things to do and nothing done. I will of course be grateful for efforts actually made. If it were me, I would have made efforts first. Especially if I was just offering to copy and paste other peoples work.
-
Konrad Klar
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 4352
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
- Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
As a player I would want an arbiter other than my opponent. And I would want a some body/organization that issues rulings accepted by me and by my opponent(s). Even if I disagree with some ruling, bad ruling is sometimes better than no ruling; because kludge at least allows a game to be proceeded.
I do not know whether NetRep is most appropriate name for such body/organization [Internet Representative (of defunct company)], but the body evolved in time into self-reliant body/organization independent from ICE. And by long time was recognized by many players as a source of rulings that oblige (only those who recognize it as such source).
I do not know whether NetRep is most appropriate name for such body/organization [Internet Representative (of defunct company)], but the body evolved in time into self-reliant body/organization independent from ICE. And by long time was recognized by many players as a source of rulings that oblige (only those who recognize it as such source).
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
A beginner can't be expected to have read all of the rules. An experienced player can.
Because no one mentioned it and it was highly relevant in hundreds of CoE NetRep rulings and hundreds of internet forum posts. If someone had read it, they would have spoken up.
The URD is posted here on the CoE forums and comments on the URD were requested by the Chairmen of the CoE. So I'd say that my comments were certainly within official CoE business.marcos wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 11:57 pm C- The URD was a fanmade project by b_took, considering it something "official" or CoE stamped is a mistake. It is unnofficial. Therefore putting its errors on the hands of people that had nothing to do with it, is another mistake. The URD had a lot of subjective oppinions.
What I have posted is "concrete." Or, what definition of that term are you using? Because it doesn't fit any that I've seen.
If I'm asked a question I respond.
Thank you. I hosted a sealed deck tournament on CardNum and posted about it here.
There are some players who discover MECCG through BGG lists of games. I make efforts to introduce new players to the game. You can dismiss that but I think it is helpful.
Really? Because someone who is not in the mood for endless discussion seems like a poor choice for a "NetRep." Especially someone misusing or misunderstanding the terms "NetRep" and "Digest". I tried to explain the terms and how ICE used them but I guess saying something against Manuel is a no no.
----------
Manuel is a stranger to CoE forums. I don't know him. Anyone else who has just been here doesn't know him. Just because some of you do know him doesn't mean that every player should be expected to be so thankful for him showing up to... copy and paste other people's work... I don't know.
I don't know Manuel. But I know how ICE made rulings and I know the meaning of words. I explained that here. That's all I did. I don't know why my contribution to the community is under attack when I'm not even some CoE "official."
Sorry I don't know Manuel because he hasn't bothered to contribute to the endless discussions. Maybe the NetRep should try contributing to the discussion here first.
Since we are on the topic of a new NetRep, some of you might find Ichabod's test for a new netrep interesting. It's the official test after all. Should be easy except maybe a couple. For me #16 was the hardest, I had to realize it was a trick.
Ichabod wrote:From: ich...@spamblock.cstone.net (Craig Ichabod O'Brien)
Subject: [MECCG] Looking for New Netrep
Date: 1998/08/27
Hey y'all,
For all y'all out there who think you can do this job better than me, here's your chance to prove it.
1. The CRF says that the hoard goes away immediately (under Rulings by Term) if a Dragon manifestation is defeated, and that it goes away at the end of the turn (under Complete Errata Listing). Which is correct?
2. What regions does No Escape From My Magic apply to if I play it on Snaga-hai?
3. Can I assign a strike from Cave Drake to an tapped character?
4. I just started playing, and I don't understand the rules. Can you explain them to me?
5. Can I play a Wizard's Ring at Minas Tirith with the White Tree played on it?
6. If I move while a Snowstorm is out, can my opponent play hazards on me? Can he key creatures to my site of origin?
7. When are you going to errata Eomer to make him like he was in the books?
8. Can I play Rebuild the Town before the automatic-attack has been faced?
9. If two people are playing a Fallen-wizard in a general opponent tournament, who declares which Fallen-wizard they are playing first?
10. What happens if I tap Power Built by Waiting, and then my opponent plays Marvels Told on it?
11. I'm never buying MECCG again. I bought a booster pack, and there was no rare card in it.
12. For the Balrog of Moria, does the +2 prowess bonus if Galadriel is in Lorien apply to itself?
13. I was attacked in company vs. company combat. My opponent played Orc Quarells to cancel the attack, but I said he couldn't because I had a Two-headed Troll in the company. Who is right?
14. Can I get a Twilight from my discard pile with Smoke Rings if I played it as a resource?
15. If I play Dark Tryst in response to a hazard, can I use one of the cards I draw to cancel the hazard?
16. When is the Balrog coming out?
17. If I Marvels Told a corruption card, do I have to make the corruption check before or after the corruption card is removed?
18. The CRF says a character can tap to take a corruption card off of another character. Why isn't this errata to the rules?
19. If I use starter movement from Lorien to Rivendell, can a Cave Wyrm be played on me?
20. If you were the netrep, how would you do the job?
------- "The Crossing-guard of Mordor" -------
Craig "Ichabod" O'Brien Remove spamblock to reply by email
Assistant Editor, Iron Crown Enterprises Me:CCG Official Netrep
http://www.cstone.net/~ichabod/ Alternate Official Me:CCG Website
------- "We shall pick up an existence by its frogs" -Fort -------
