rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad

LSJ for netrep

3 messages from 3 participants · 13 November 1996 – 15 November 1996
original thread on Google Groups

Ewok

Greetings all, Since we have no one to give us official answers, and it seems we must have someone to provide them (since having conflicting rulings causes problems in play), I think there is no reason why we, as a newsgroup, can't get together and decide on a netrep within the group, who is suitably versed with the rules and able to make fair rulings. Since LSJ has the virtually unanimous support of the whole newsgroup, I would nominate him as our netrep. At any rate, we should call for a vote at the very least. If WOTC won't provide us with answers, we at the very least can call upon our most levelheaded rulesmonger to guide us instead. This, of course, assumes Mr. Johnson would be interested in operating as "unofficial netrep". Seeing the degree of dedication and interest he has in the game, I'm sure it would not exceed the amount of commitment he currently has to helping out in the newsgroup, and would give him some well-earned credit to boot. Thoughts? Scott? Juan -- ___ /^\/\ ,, Juan Burwell | __| || ( {=@=====[=] Amherst College | _| \\/\// /^\ ||// \_/\/ '' jmbu...@unix.amherst.edu |___| \/\/ \_/ ||\\

L. Scott Johnson

jmbu...@unix.amherst.edu (Ewok) writes: >Greetings all, > Since we have no one to give us official answers, and it seems we >must have someone to provide them (since having conflicting rulings causes >problems in play), I think there is no reason why we, as a newsgroup, can't >get together and decide on a netrep within the group, who is suitably >versed with the rules and able to make fair rulings. Since LSJ has the >virtually unanimous support of the whole newsgroup, I would nominate him as >our netrep. At any rate, we should call for a vote at the very least. If >WOTC won't provide us with answers, we at the very least can call upon our >most levelheaded rulesmonger to guide us instead. I am happy to continue at my present rate, and will offer my own opinions on any gray areas, but cannot see any gain in being an "elected" netrep. DCI (sacntioned) tournaments will not be able to use my rulings, so my rulings will be nothing more than house rules (as they always have been). If a particular play group wishes to adopt my house rules en masse, that's fine. But you can do that already. (I should differentiate between the "rulings" I make as far as what I think WotC means vs. the "rulings" I make as far as what I think RCG would've wanted and the "rulings" I throw in just for fun, I suppose - so I could do that, if "elected"). In short, I think the "election" process will serve no useful end, except to further show our dissatifaction with the way we are currently being "served". But thanks a great deal for the voice of support for my efforts, at any rate. > This, of course, assumes Mr. Johnson would be interested in operating >as "unofficial netrep". Seeing the degree of dedication and interest he has >in the game, I'm sure it would not exceed the amount of commitment he currently >has to helping out in the newsgroup, and would give him some well-earned >credit to boot. > Thoughts? Scott? I'm interested in seeing the game supported, and will continue to do what I can. Adding a "popular sanctioning" voice to my house rules is fine, but until someone starts a rival DCI structure (implementing the group's rules over the (lack of) "official" ones), not much will have changed. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Experience is something you http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | get just after you need it. Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |

theCorrupter

On 13 Nov 1996, Ewok wrote: > Since we have no one to give us official answers, and it seems we > must have someone to provide them (since having conflicting rulings causes > problems in play), I think there is no reason why we, as a newsgroup, can't > get together and decide on a netrep within the group, who is suitably > versed with the rules and able to make fair rulings. Since LSJ has the > virtually unanimous support of the whole newsgroup, I would nominate him as > our netrep. At any rate, we should call for a vote at the very least. If > WOTC won't provide us with answers, we at the very least can call upon our > most levelheaded rulesmonger to guide us instead. I would well welcome such a status as "netrep" in LSJ. It is unfortunate, however, that he would be unable to actually talk with the DTR, make rulings, etc... Had he been netrep some time ago, I am sure the game would be in a far better state than it is today. However, I think that such title-dubbing is mostly ineffective, really serving only to show that LSJ would do a far better job than those who have been appointed to the position, _Despite_ the fact that he has no real influence. Even though his voice carries no _official_ weight, I highly recommend him for the job. (yes, I am rambling. 3 hours sleep does that) > This, of course, assumes Mr. Johnson would be interested in operating > as "unofficial netrep". Seeing the degree of dedication and interest he has > in the game, I'm sure it would not exceed the amount of commitment he currently > has to helping out in the newsgroup, and would give him some well-earned > credit to boot. > Thoughts? Scott? If only it meant more... -The Corrupter sigless, and out of quota space