[LSJ 25-MAR-2000]

I seem to have missed a Rules Team Ruling. I have not been able to find it with Deja. If you have an opportunity, please repost the Rules Team Ruling associated with: [LSJ 25-MAR-2000] Carpe Noctem. Lasombra http://members.tripod.com/~Lasombra Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

bi...@my-deja.com wrote: > If you have an opportunity, please repost the > Rules Team Ruling associated with: > [LSJ 25-MAR-2000] The only thing I could find was this from the 24th: http://x37.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=601945761 Long answer: Terror Frenzy uses "pay" indicating a cost, and "when" indicating that it is not a cost. I'd go with your reading - the extra blood is just burned. It isn't an increase in the cost of the card. (i.e., treat "pays" as "burns" in this case, rather than treating "when playing" as "to play".) Unless LSJ has become a Rules Team of one person, I don't see how this can be considered an official ruling. I was under the impression that official rulings were to be in the form of quarterly updates after the rules team (made up of more than just LSJ) had a chance to discuss it, rather than "off the cuff" commentary. If this is how rulings are going to come down in the future, I sure as hell will not advocate that the NJL will combine with the VEKN for the forseeable future. This is exactly the reason that the NJL split off in the first place. Noal McDonald National Jyhad League Rules Team Member [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8btq0p$ns0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Noal McDonald <dharzhak@my- deja.com> writes >This is >exactly the reason that the NJL split off in the first place. Is it? AIUI, they split off because they didn't like the 7/7 and similar rulings. Those certainly were not done by one person. -- James Coupe

Noal McDonald wrote: > > bi...@my-deja.com wrote: > > If you have an opportunity, please repost the > > Rules Team Ruling associated with: > > [LSJ 25-MAR-2000] > > The only thing I could find was this from the 24th: > http://x37.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=601945761 > > Long answer: > Terror Frenzy uses "pay" indicating a cost, and "when" indicating that > it is not a cost. I'd go with your reading - the extra blood is just > burned. It isn't an increase in the cost of the card. (i.e., treat > "pays" as "burns" in this case, rather than treating "when playing" as > "to play".) > > Unless LSJ has become a Rules Team of one person, I don't see how this > can be considered an official ruling. I was under the impression that All "answers" from the Net.Rep are official. Nothing new there. > official rulings were to be in the form of quarterly updates after the > rules team (made up of more than just LSJ) had a chance to discuss it, > rather than "off the cuff" commentary. If this is how rulings are going > to come down in the future, I sure [...] will not advocate that the > NJL will combine with the VEKN for the forseeable future. This is > exactly the reason that the NJL split off in the first place. Nice. As stated previously, the card text is contradictory. The appropriate solution to that is to issue errata resolving the problem. The alternative is to say "there is no official answer - make it up as you go if the question regarding this ambiguity comes up in a tournament", which is not acceptable. As with such non-obvious errata and rulings that had to be issued off-the-cuff before, the matter will be placed before the RT for confirmation. Or does the NJL prefer to shift the off-the-cuff ruling responsibility to the judges in the middle of a tournament? -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.geocities.com/vtesrep

bi...@my-deja.com wrote: > > I seem to have missed a Rules Team Ruling. > I have not been able to find it with Deja. > > If you have an opportunity, please repost the > Rules Team Ruling associated with: > > [LSJ 25-MAR-2000] Sorry, that is a citation to a post by LSJ, not to a Rules Team Ruling. RTRs are cited as [RTR 01-MON-1900]. (Also the date is 24-MAR, not 25-MAR as I previously said - sorry for the slip). The post cited is: http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=601945761 [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@obeah.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> writes >>This is exactly the reason that the NJL split off in the first place. > James Coupe <ja...@obeah.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Is it? > AIUI, they split off because they didn't like the 7/7 and similar > rulings. Those certainly were not done by one person. That was certainly a large part of it. The other part was as soon as Scott was given the official power to issue errata, there were two very large sets of rulings made within about two weeks (6/23 and 7/7) and many people on our mailing list felt that LSJ had gone overboard. After the dust settled, the core reason was that most people simply didn't trust LSJ and the anonymous rules team (which led to speculation about whether it acutally exists) to make rulings in a manner that was best for the game as a whole. This most recent ruling is a fine example of what some feared would transpire. We wanted a rules team that could be held accountable and got feedback from each other and from the playgroups (which required representatives from the most active and largest playgroups) before instituting new rulings or clarifications. As it stands, we have want we wanted. Noal McDonald National Jyhad League -- "All authority belongs to the people." --Thomas Jefferson [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8bturu$tfn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Noal McDonald <dharzhak@my- deja.com> writes >That was certainly a large part of it. The other part was as soon as >Scott was given the official power to issue errata, there were two very >large sets of rulings made within about two weeks (6/23 and 7/7) and >many people on our mailing list felt that LSJ had gone overboard. These were Rules Team Rulings, not LSJ Rulings. They were *not* issued solely by LSJ, in the way that an "on the fly" ruling is. -- James Coupe

First off, Scoot, I'd like to apologize for being so adversarial in my early posting. I went a tad overboard. Of course, me being a hot headed asshole from time to time is nothing new. Blame it on me being officially "over 30" tomorrow. *wry grin* That said, let me try to address my concerns in a more diplomatic and constructive manner. >> Noal McDonald wrote: >> Unless LSJ has become a Rules Team of one person, I don't see >> how this can be considered an official ruling. LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > All "answers" from the Net.Rep are official. Nothing new there. However, they shouldn't be implied to be "final" until the rules team has a chance to discuss and approve said answers. Towards that, it would probably be a good idea to state your decision in a separate post entitled to the effect of "LSJ Temp Ruling 24-MAR-2000", rather than just in a reply. This would make it easier to reference in Deja (and other newsgroup readers) and it would also make it clear that the issue may change in the near future (say someone makes a compelling argument for a contrary interpretation). >> If this is how rulings are going to come down in the future, >> I sure [...] will not advocate that the NJL will combine with >> the VEKN for the forseeable future. This is exactly the reason >> that the NJL split off in the first place. > > Nice. As I stated earlier, my concern was that you would issue rulings that were considered final, rather than pending, at irregular intervals. As this puts extra strain on the ability for tournament moderators to keep up with changes as evidenced on a larger scale by the aftermath of the 6/23 and 7/7 rulings, this is an issue that I would really rather not see get stirred up again. > As stated previously, the card text is contradictory. It's not really as contradictory as you seem to think it is. For example, do you pay the 1 pool for Short Term Investment _when_ (meaning "as") the card is played or _before_ the card is played? Clearly, the pool is not paid afterwards. > The appropriate solution to that is to issue errata resolving > the problem. No, the appropriate solution IMO is to state "pending final decision by the rules team, the appropriate interpretation is..." Meaning that only clarifications should be issued until you've had a chance to discuss the matter with your rules team. > The alternative is to say "there is no official > answer - make it up as you go if the question regarding this > ambiguity comes up in a tournament", which is not acceptable. However, if the issue comes up first at a tournament rather than on the newsgroup, that's exactly what does happen. The only alternative is to go over every single card, one at a time, with your rules team and decide whether the wording is clear enough and whether there are any overtly unbalancing effects. > As with such non-obvious errata and rulings that had to be issued > off-the-cuff before, the matter will be placed before the RT for > confirmation. As I said above, this should be made more clear in the future. > Or does the NJL prefer to shift the off-the-cuff ruling > responsibility to the judges in the middle of a tournament? If a judge in a tournament, NJL or VEKN, comes across an issue that hasn't come up before that's exactly what they have to do. That's why judges are given authority to make binding rules decisions during a tournament. OTOH, since our judges are usually members of our rules team and, in most cases, at least three rules team members are present at tournaments, we can usually get at least temporary consensus on an issue. Of course, that's the strength of a smaller group. Since your rules team is likely a bit more spread out geographically, that's much more difficult for you to arrange. Again, I apologize for earlier. I'm not trying to burn bridges in the community. I just want to make sure it's being served as best as possible...esp. in light of the recent changing of hands. [ quoted text not captured ]

>> Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> writes >> That was certainly a large part of it. The other part was as >> soon as Scott was given the official power to issue errata, >> there were two very large sets of rulings made within about >> two weeks (6/23 and 7/7) and many people on our mailing list >> felt that LSJ had gone overboard. > James Coupe <ja...@obeah.demon.co.uk> wrote: > These were Rules Team Rulings, not LSJ Rulings. They were *not* > issued solely by LSJ, in the way that an "on the fly" ruling is. While completely accurate, I'm certain, that wasn't the perception at the time for those people that weren't in the loop for whatever reason. As far as I recall (and my memory can be faulty here), it wasn't properly communicated that LSJ was the front man of a rules team until after the outcry had already started. Most people I talked to were aware only that LSJ had been given final authority and that nobody from the design team was willing to answer any further questions regarding the game. It was believed by those same people that he was a lone gunman so to speak. I won't name names, but I can recall specific concerns in here, as well on the Michigan Jyhad mailing list, that LSJ had no rules team and was the first and last authority on card rulings. Either way, LSJ was the only visible person of an otherwise amorphous, anonymous rules team. When this was finally known, the lack of straight answers when questions were asked regarding the basis for and process by which a person joined the rules team only further added to the already existing rumors. People do tend to get suspicious of the man behind the curtain when they stand in the antechamber of the wizard of the Emerald City. The point I'm coming to is that a large part of what transpired in the aftermath of the 7/7 rulings, including the NJL, was a direct result of suspicions and rumors that eroded the trust that LSJ otherwise would have enjoyed after being given the reins by the design team. After all, people generally dislike drastic change. When that change isn't explained to their satisfaction, they also generally distrust or fear it as well. And that, James, is why things are the way they are in the VTES community. We can work to build those bridges again, but tempers are going to flare from time to time (esp. mine if I post before my morning coffee...just don't take it too seriously) and we'll just have to be forgiving and willing to compromise on both sides. [ quoted text not captured ]

Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote: > >> Noal McDonald wrote: > >> Unless LSJ has become a Rules Team of one person, I don't see > >> how this can be considered an official ruling. > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > All "answers" from the Net.Rep are official. Nothing new there. > > However, they shouldn't be implied to be "final" until the rules team > has a chance to discuss and approve said answers. Towards that, it It is as final as anything. I didn't imply it was final, only that it was official. Like everything official, it will remain official until (and if) it is officially changed. Even RT rulings are subject to review. > would probably be a good idea to state your decision in a separate > post entitled to the effect of "LSJ Temp Ruling 24-MAR-2000", rather [LSJ DD-MON-YYYY] is short-hand for "LSJ said this on DD-MON-YYY." Similar notation is used for things anyone said, official or not. (Although, admittedly, I have fewer causes to cite non-official posts than official ones.) If the NJL uses such notation to mean something else, then let this serve as a clarification of the standard meaning. > than just in a reply. This would make it easier to reference in Deja > (and other newsgroup readers) and it would also make it clear that the How would altering the citation make it easier to reference? (Barring adding the Message-ID or Deja Record number to the citation)? > issue may change in the near future (say someone makes a compelling > argument for a contrary interpretation). Anytime anyone makes a compelling argument for contrary interpretation of *any* ruling (made by myself or the RT itself), the "issue may change in the near future". > >> If this is how rulings are going to come down in the future, > >> I sure [...] will not advocate that the NJL will combine with > >> the VEKN for the forseeable future. This is exactly the reason > >> that the NJL split off in the first place. > > > > Nice. > > As I stated earlier, my concern was that you would issue rulings that > were considered final, rather than pending, at irregular intervals. As They are final until changed. As are all of the rules. > this puts extra strain on the ability for tournament moderators to keep > up with changes as evidenced on a larger scale by the aftermath of the This is not a change, as stated. It is a resolution of contradiction. The alternative to issuing the resolution now is to say: sorry, I can't tell you what to do about the conflict until the next set of RT rulings is issued. Until then, just flip a coin when it comes up. Which still involves a change - the change is merely postponed until it's too late for the player to do anything about it. > 6/23 and 7/7 rulings, this is an issue that I would really rather not > see get stirred up again. Fine with me. > > As stated previously, the card text is contradictory. > > It's not really as contradictory as you seem to think it is. For > example, do you pay the 1 pool for Short Term Investment _when_ > (meaning "as") the card is played or _before_ the card is played? > Clearly, the pool is not paid afterwards. You "pay" (burn) the pool *to* play STI. The cost is paid in order to play the card. Costs are specified as "cost" or with the "do X *to* do Y" template. > > The appropriate solution to that is to issue errata resolving > > the problem. > > No, the appropriate solution IMO is to state "pending final decision by > the rules team, the appropriate interpretation is..." Meaning that > only clarifications should be issued until you've had a chance to > discuss the matter with your rules team. Same thing. Any reversal issued by the RT would supercede whatever it is that it was reversing. > > The alternative is to say "there is no official > > answer - make it up as you go if the question regarding this > > ambiguity comes up in a tournament", which is not acceptable. > > However, if the issue comes up first at a tournament rather than on the > newsgroup, that's exactly what does happen. The only alternative is to Yes. Fortunately, this issue came up here first. > go over every single card, one at a time, with your rules team and > decide whether the wording is clear enough and whether there are any > overtly unbalancing effects. Which has been done. Which resulted in the mass-rulings you claim to dislike so much. (Hmmm - dislike for many changes all at once, and a dislike for small changes over time. Not much room left.) Since we are not perfect, of course, some things were missed. > > As with such non-obvious errata and rulings that had to be issued > > off-the-cuff before, the matter will be placed before the RT for > > confirmation. > > As I said above, this should be made more clear in the future. OK. Consider this post such a clarification. > > Or does the NJL prefer to shift the off-the-cuff ruling > > responsibility to the judges in the middle of a tournament? > > If a judge in a tournament, NJL or VEKN, comes across an issue that > hasn't come up before that's exactly what they have to do. That's why > judges are given authority to make binding rules decisions during a > tournament. And if (like now) the issue *has* come up...? I find it preferable to have as many issues resolved as possible *before* the tournament so that players will know how things will work at a tournament (something the NJL espouses, as well, I believe). > OTOH, since our judges are usually members of our rules team and, in > most cases, at least three rules team members are present at > tournaments, we can usually get at least temporary consensus on an > issue. Of course, that's the strength of a smaller group. Since your > rules team is likely a bit more spread out geographically, that's much > more difficult for you to arrange. I don't see how this is pertinent - making RT rulings "on the fly" at tournaments is no more desirable than having a lone judge make a ruling "on the fly" - the player still doesn't have the benefit of knowing what the ruling is when constructing her deck. > Again, I apologize for earlier. I'm not trying to burn bridges in the No problem. > community. I just want to make sure it's being served as best as > possible...esp. in light of the recent changing of hands. And "served as best as possible" is 1) providing answers to issues as they come up or 2) postponing answers until the next RT ? I'd say it is 1), regardless of whose hands the game is in. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.geocities.com/vtesrep [ quoted text not captured ]

> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > It is as final as anything. I didn't imply it was final, only > that it was official. Like everything official, it will remain > official until (and if) it is officially changed. > Even RT rulings are subject to review. I guess that it boils down to how much weight your rulings have until your RT discusses it. IN the NJL, none of the rules team members can issue "official" clarifications until we've all talked it out. Keeps the confusion level to a minimum. >> would probably be a good idea to state your decision in a >> separate post entitled to the effect of "LSJ Temp Ruling >> 24-MAR-2000", rather > > [LSJ DD-MON-YYYY] is short-hand for "LSJ said this on DD-MON-YYY." > Similar notation is used for things anyone said, official or not. > (Although, admittedly, I have fewer causes to cite non-official > posts than official ones.) I think the VTES community as a whole would be shocked to see you quote [NAM DD-MON-YYYY] as a ruling. Although it would make for an amusing April Fools Day prank... > If the NJL uses such notation to mean something else, then let this > serve as a clarification of the standard meaning. We use LSJ, RTR (as referenced by you) and NJL notations. >> than just in a reply. This would make it easier to reference >> in Deja (and other newsgroup readers) > > How would altering the citation make it easier to reference? > (Barring adding the Message-ID or Deja Record number to the > citation)? Take a look at the question that started the thread. The person didn't know which ruling you meant as he probably didn't read that thread. I had to do a power search for posts with the words, "Terror Frenzy" in it that were authored by you in the last two weeks to find it. My point was that if you put it in a new post (and therefore new thread) it would be easier to find in a casual search and would call more attention to your ruling to people that weren't paying attention to the thread containing the question. > Anytime anyone makes a compelling argument for contrary interpretation > of *any* ruling (made by myself or the RT itself), the "issue may > change in the near future". While I suppose that's true, what I meant by that quote is to say that it's still an open issue. As opposed to RtI, for example. > > It's not really as contradictory as you seem to think it is. For > > example, do you pay the 1 pool for Short Term Investment _when_ > > (meaning "as") the card is played or _before_ the card is played? > > Clearly, the pool is not paid afterwards. > > You "pay" (burn) the pool *to* play STI. The cost is paid in order > to play the card. You're dodging the question. The word "when" referers to timing, not requirement. You're also equating the word "pay" to "burn" now when you specifically said that "pay" did not refer to "burn" earlier...so let's keep this consistent. As I said earlier, I felt that the word "pay" was more clearly used than the word "when" and therefore a cost effect, not a burn effect, is the more intuitive ruling. Certainly, there is no game balance issue at stake here. >> go over every single card, one at a time, with your rules team >> and decide whether the wording is clear enough and whether there >> are any overtly unbalancing effects. > > Which has been done. Which resulted in the mass-rulings you claim > to dislike so much. I didn't say that the alternative was one I liked. Just that the alternative does exist. > (Hmmm - dislike for many changes all at once, and a dislike for > small changes over time. Not much room left.) What's left is temporary solutions pending periodical updates. ;) >> As I said above, this should be made more clear in the future. > OK. Consider this post such a clarification. Uh...not what I meant. I meant with the rulings. > I find it preferable to have as many issues resolved as possible > *before* the tournament so that players will know how things will > work at a tournament (something the NJL espouses, as well, I > believe). Yes, but if a final decision hasn't been made, we make it clear that the ruling is temporary and the issue is still considered open. > I don't see how this is pertinent - making RT rulings "on the fly" > at tournaments is no more desirable than having a lone judge make > a ruling "on the fly" - the player still doesn't have the benefit > of knowing what the ruling is when constructing her deck. Agreed. Which is why we make an effort not to have to do that. If such an event does occur, the ruling at the tournament is certainly not considered final. > And "served as best as possible" is > 1) providing answers to issues as they come up > or > 2) postponing answers until the next RT > ? > > I'd say it is 1), regardless of whose hands the game is in. I'd say a compromise of both. Well, you have your ways and I have mine. The difference, obviously, is that you're the guy that makes the official decisions. Noal -- As of today, 3/30/2000, I am now over 30. Therefore you can not trust me. If you don't know why, ask your parents. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 30 Mar 2000 16:06:24 GMT, Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote: >> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> It is as final as anything. I didn't imply it was final, only >> that it was official. Like everything official, it will remain >> official until (and if) it is officially changed. >> Even RT rulings are subject to review. > >I guess that it boils down to how much weight your rulings have until >your RT discusses it. IN the NJL, none of the rules team members can >issue "official" clarifications until we've all talked it out. Keeps >the confusion level to a minimum. Well, the ruling is official until the RT discusses it, right? He's mentioned that he submits his on-the-fly rulings to the RT for review, so there is no -real- confusion... everything will still be reviewed by the RT. It's just that it's possible to go to one person and get a ruling, as opposed to submitting a question to a committee which may not immediately respond or be ABLE to immediately respond. The decision to make all rulings "official" as opposed to "temporary" is an excellent one, frankly - One Authority Figure will be listened to. He will be disagreed with, of course, but since it's official, what he sez goez. The alternative you suggest, temporary rulings, leaves open the nitpick "But your Rules Team might disagree, right? So why shouldn't we play it this way until we get an OFFICIAL ruling, right?" Just causes more arguments than it solves. Also, what if one of your team interprets something one way and another disagrees with him on the spot? Since nobody can make an 'official' ruling, whose opinion takes precedence for the "temporary" one? This is actually more of an objection to a full-team approach(NJL) as opposed to a foreman/jury type of approach(LSJ). Someone is there to Make A Decision(tm), which can be held to as official until further review - and can be quoted to others as official, which is nice when people weren't present for the ruling. >> [LSJ DD-MON-YYYY] is short-hand for "LSJ said this on DD-MON-YYY." >> Similar notation is used for things anyone said, official or not. >> (Although, admittedly, I have fewer causes to cite non-official >> posts than official ones.) > >I think the VTES community as a whole would be shocked to see you quote >[NAM DD-MON-YYYY] as a ruling. Although it would make for an amusing >April Fools Day prank... I think his point is that [DSR DD-MON-YYYY] just means that I said that, not that it was somehow any sort of ruling. Obviously, for rulings, he's going to tend to quote what he and [RTR] have said in the past, although he's used TJW or whatever Tom Wylie's initials were before. >> How would altering the citation make it easier to reference? >> (Barring adding the Message-ID or Deja Record number to the >> citation)? > >Take a look at the question that started the thread. The person didn't >know which ruling you meant as he probably didn't read that thread. I >had to do a power search for posts with the words, "Terror Frenzy" in it >that were authored by you in the last two weeks to find it. My point >was that if you put it in a new post (and therefore new thread) it would >be easier to find in a casual search and would call more attention to >your ruling to people that weren't paying attention to the thread >containing the question. True, but there are a lot of idiots on USENET, and putting it outside the thread means that someone is going to say "But you didn't answer my question!!" If you make something idiot-proof, someone will just make a better idiot. =) >> Anytime anyone makes a compelling argument for contrary interpretation >> of *any* ruling (made by myself or the RT itself), the "issue may >> change in the near future". > >While I suppose that's true, what I meant by that quote is to say that >it's still an open issue. As opposed to RtI, for example. But all issues are still open. Or, all issues are closed (but available to be reopened), depending on which way you want to look at it. Should someone produce a compelling argument to unban RtI, the ruling could be reversed. I'm not going to bet on that happening, myself, but see where it's coming from? It's easier (and clearer) than arbitrarily classifying things as 'temporary', 'open', or whatever. I mean, if there's an issue 'open' on Terror Frenzy, which way do you play the card until it's 'closed'? Leaving it up to a TD is not a pleasant thing for the poor TD - easier to give him something to fall back on that's official since he's the Final Line for that event. >> (Hmmm - dislike for many changes all at once, and a dislike for >> small changes over time. Not much room left.) > >What's left is temporary solutions pending periodical updates. ;) Do you really want ANY Rules Team to be forced to meet every so often and poke through the cards to look for changes, even if there are only a couple minor issues? >> I find it preferable to have as many issues resolved as possible >> *before* the tournament so that players will know how things will >> work at a tournament (something the NJL espouses, as well, I >> believe). > >Yes, but if a final decision hasn't been made, we make it clear that the >ruling is temporary and the issue is still considered open. Paving the way for argumentative, bitchy players. We may not have any/that many now, but we'll get our fair share with new players that come in from the new V:TES WW support. Lord knows Magic already has enough. >> I don't see how this is pertinent - making RT rulings "on the fly" >> at tournaments is no more desirable than having a lone judge make >> a ruling "on the fly" - the player still doesn't have the benefit >> of knowing what the ruling is when constructing her deck. > >Agreed. Which is why we make an effort not to have to do that. If such >an event does occur, the ruling at the tournament is certainly not >considered final. (shrug) having heard him make on-the-fly rulings at tournaments before, it comes in a verbal form something like "OK, i'll toss that in front of the Rules Team, but for now, play it this way." I don't know how someone who heard that could be confused as to it being "final", in the sense of permanent, fixed, and immobile. -- Derek Deafness never kept composers from hearing the music. It only stopped them hearing the distractions.

lor...@yahoo.com (Derek Ray) wrote: > It's just that it's possible to go to one person and get a > ruling, as opposed to submitting a question to a committee > which may not immediately respond or be ABLE to immediately > respond. I see your point here and I think I conceded something to this effect towards the end of one of my earlier posts. The rules team model that the NJL uses may not be practical for WW/VEKN as it may not scale all that well. > The alternative you suggest, temporary rulings, leaves open > the nitpick "But your Rules Team might disagree, right? So > why shouldn't we play it this way until we get an OFFICIAL > ruling, right?" Just causes more arguments than it solves. I see your point. I was trying to advocate a method that would foster further discussion. However, as you note, the conversation may not necessarily be as productive as intended. > Also, what if one of your team interprets something one way > and another disagrees with him on the spot? If there's an odd number, usually majority wins. Even number, the person running the tournament wins. Note that this is not a formal method, just what I've observed happen in the past. Since our tournaments are usually populated by playgroups that have known each other for years and get along well, this works more smoothly than it may appear. I understand that a few WW RT members at a Origins tournament hashing it out wouldn't be all that practical as the people involved are generally folks that don't know each other from Adam. > Since nobody can make an 'official' ruling, whose opinion takes > precedence for the "temporary" one? This is actually more of an > objection to a full-team approach(NJL) as opposed to a foreman/jury > type of approach(LSJ). No one person's opinion always take precedence outside of tournaments. It usually falls to who can make the best case based on NJL & official errata and printed text. > Someone is there to Make A Decision(tm), which can be held to > as official until further review - and can be quoted to others > as official, which is nice when people weren't present for the > ruling. I suppose. I don't see that this would be needed for us with our structure. We built up around a well-organized distribution list so communication has never been a problem. Obviously, LSJ is not dealing with the same type of dynamic. >> I think the VTES community as a whole would be shocked to see >> you quote [NAM DD-MON-YYYY] as a ruling. Although it would make >> for an amusing April Fools Day prank... > > I think his point is that [DSR DD-MON-YYYY] just means that I > said that, not that it was somehow any sort of ruling. I understand that. I was just making a joke here to lighten the mood a bit...esp. since I was mostly reponsible for its darker tone. >> Take a look at the question that started the thread. The person >> didn't know which ruling you meant as he probably didn't read >> that thread. I had to do a power search for posts with the words, >> "Terror Frenzy" in it that were authored by you in the last two >> weeks to find it. My point was that if you put it in a new post >> (and therefore new thread) it would be easier to find in a casual >> search and would call more attention to your ruling to people >> that weren't paying attention to the thread containing the >> question. > > True, but there are a lot of idiots on USENET, and putting it outside > the thread means that someone is going to say "But you didn't answer > my question!!" If you make something idiot-proof, someone will just > make a better idiot. =) I'm sorry. I thought I made it clear I was discussing a separate thread in addition to, not instead of, an answer to the original question. Cover all bases, so to speak. >> While I suppose that's true, what I meant by that quote is to >> say that it's still an open issue. As opposed to RtI, for >> example. > > But all issues are still open. Not in the sense that there is still ongoing discussion. At some point, you have to come to a final conclusion. The issue of card limits, for example. While some people may still harbor opinions to the contrary, the issue was settled (thankfully) a long time ago. > Or, all issues are closed (but available to be reopened), depending > on which way you want to look at it. Should someone produce a > compelling argument to unban RtI, the ruling could be reversed. This of course, means that the matter is no longer being discussed at all. > I mean, if there's an issue 'open' on Terror Frenzy, which > way do you play the card until it's 'closed'? My point wasn't to create a vacuum but rather just to communicate that the issue was being discussed and that a final decision one way or the other would be coming in the near future. I felt that it might foster more communication that could bring to light something that hadn't been considered. Take the First Strike vs. S:CE "debate", for example. The SoD/WC combo was a compelling argument that most people had not considered, much less weighed possible game balance effects caused by it. > Do you really want ANY Rules Team to be forced to meet every so often > and poke through the cards to look for changes, even if there are only > a couple minor issues? If issues come up, yes. I have yet to recall when a month has gone by that some issue requiring a ruling of some kind didn't come up. Let's face it, WotC was (and still is IMHO) in dire need of a new editor. Standardized phrasing would certainly have made the game easier to play. >> Yes, but if a final decision hasn't been made, we make it clear >> that the ruling is temporary and the issue is still considered >> open. > > Paving the way for argumentative, bitchy players. You know what we do with these type of people? We put them on our rules team. ;) > We may not have any/that many now, but we'll get our fair share > with new players that come in from the new V:TES WW support. That's possible. But do we want to curtail debate because of newbies? > Lord knows Magic already has enough. I wouldn't know. I don't play the game, much less pay attention to their news group. > (shrug) having heard him make on-the-fly rulings at tournaments > before, it comes in a verbal form something like "OK, i'll toss that > in front of the Rules Team, but for now, play it this way." I don't > know how someone who heard that could be confused as to it being > "final", in the sense of permanent, fixed, and immobile. I've never been at a LSJ-run event, so I can't comment one way or another. I was just bringing up our methods as a counterpoint, while conceding that what works for us would likely not work for him. Noal -- "All authority belongs to the people." --Thomas Jefferson [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8bvu1h$2qd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Noal McDonald <dharzhak@my- deja.com> writes >IN the NJL, none of the rules team members can >issue "official" clarifications until we've all talked it out. If a question comes up at an NJL game about a dubious play of cards (i.e. it can be ruled one way or the other), what do you do? Assuming that there are only a minority of the committee, too, if it would make any difference. -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net http://www.obeah.demon.co.uk

In article <8bulsk$n86$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Noal McDonald <dharzhak@my- deja.com> writes >While completely accurate, I'm certain, that wasn't the perception at >the time for those people that weren't in the loop for whatever >reason. It was pretty obvious to anyone reading the posts. They had Rules Team Rulings plastered over them. Anyone who was relying on hearsay (e.g. those who did not have net access) should have had the information communicated to them by a more reliable source. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ve...@obeah.demon.co.uk> wrote: > If a question comes up at an NJL game about a dubious play of cards > (i.e. it can be ruled one way or the other), what do you do? Assuming > that there are only a minority of the committee, too, if it would make > any difference. Well, obviously during the game the moderator has the final say. I was speaking in the context of the mailing list. Noal -- "All authority belongs to the people." --Thomas Jefferson [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8c0di0$lf8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Noal McDonald <dharzhak@my- deja.com> writes >Well, obviously during the game the moderator has the final say. I was >speaking in the context of the mailing list. I would posit that LSJ's day-to-day responses are the equivalent of a moderator in a game. Unless his responses were to come habitually three days late, he would have no time to contact the Rules Team, I would have thought. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > > In article <8bulsk$n86$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Noal McDonald <dharzhak@my- > deja.com> writes > >While completely accurate, I'm certain, that wasn't the perception at > >the time for those people that weren't in the loop for whatever > >reason. > > It was pretty obvious to anyone reading the posts. They had Rules Team > Rulings plastered over them. > > Anyone who was relying on hearsay (e.g. those who did not have net > access) should have had the information communicated to them by a more > reliable source. > > -- > James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) > Rules Team. What Rules Team? as far as you can prove we simply have Rules person and have to take it on trust that there may be a Rules Team. Somewhere. Probably some old ex-magic players who think there is not enough errata and clarifications for Vtes and it need to be closer to the errata overload that is associated with Magic. Raille.

On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 08:49:21 -0500, Raille <rai...@mich.com> wrote: >Rules Team. What Rules Team? as far as you can prove we simply have >Rules person and have to take it on trust that there may be a Rules >Team. Somewhere. Probably some old ex-magic players who think there is >not enough errata and clarifications for Vtes and it need to be closer >to the errata overload that is associated with Magic. The Rules Team is camped out with the Smoking Man on the grassy knoll. Now cut it out. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <38E4AC...@mich.com>, Raille <rai...@mich.com> writes >Rules Team. What Rules Team? as far as you can prove we simply have >Rules person and have to take it on trust that there may be a Rules >Team. If you wish to call LSJ's integrity into account, that's your problem, not ours. >Somewhere. Probably some old ex-magic players who think there is >not enough errata and clarifications for Vtes and it need to be closer >to the errata overload that is associated with Magic. That's crap and you know it., -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net http://www.obeah.demon.co.uk

>> Raille <rai...@mich.com> wrote: >> Rules Team. What Rules Team? as far as you can prove we >> simply have Rules person and have to take it on trust >> that there may be a Rules Team. Somewhere. Probably some >> old ex-magic players who think there is not enough errata >> and clarifications for Vtes and it need to be closer to >> the errata overload that is associated with Magic. > lor...@yahoo.com (Derek Ray) wrote: > The Rules Team is camped out with the Smoking Man on the > grassy knoll. > > Now cut it out. *ROFLMAO* Damn, Dave. You gotta stop letting Ernie post messages from your computer. *grin* And here I thought you were the most pro-LSJ among us. The reason for the anonymity of the rules team is something I never understood. I don't recall that there was ever a straight answer regarding the criteria for joining or composition of the rules team. *pulls back curtain* Helloooo...Mr. Wizard? Noal -- As of 3/30/2000, I am officially "over 30" and therefore unable to be trusted. If you don't know why, ask your parents. [ quoted text not captured ]

Noal McDonald wrote: > > >> Raille <rai...@mich.com> wrote: > >> Rules Team. What Rules Team? as far as you can prove we > >> simply have Rules person and have to take it on trust > >> that there may be a Rules Team. Somewhere. Probably some > >> old ex-magic players who think there is not enough errata > >> and clarifications for Vtes and it need to be closer to > >> the errata overload that is associated with Magic. > > > lor...@yahoo.com (Derek Ray) wrote: > > The Rules Team is camped out with the Smoking Man on the > > grassy knoll. > > > > Now cut it out. > > *ROFLMAO* > Damn, Dave. You gotta stop letting Ernie post messages from your > computer. *grin* And here I thought you were the most pro-LSJ among us. > > The reason for the anonymity of the rules team is something I never > understood. I don't recall that there was ever a straight answer > regarding the criteria for joining or composition of the rules team. > > *pulls back curtain* > Helloooo...Mr. Wizard? > > Noal I am. I was justpointing out that I and most people are acting on faith that there is a actual real life rules team. The NJL has made no bones about who the team is, yet other than the Point/lead person LSJ there has never been any mention of name or personna of any other official Rules team members, which mean that we all could be having hte wool pulled over our eyes. But at least LSJ does a damn good job of it. Unlike the government. <g> Raille

James Coupe wrote: > > In article <38E4AC...@mich.com>, Raille <rai...@mich.com> writes > >Rules Team. What Rules Team? as far as you can prove we simply have > >Rules person and have to take it on trust that there may be a Rules > >Team. > > If you wish to call LSJ's integrity into account, that's your problem, > not ours. I'm not calling his intergity into account. I am stating a fact. You cannot prove that they is a rules team any more than I can prove that there is not a rules team. Now if you can prove that there is, well thats something all together different. > >Somewhere. Probably some old ex-magic players who think there is > >not enough errata and clarifications for Vtes and it need to be closer > >to the errata overload that is associated with Magic. > > That's crap and you know it., Yes I do. Lighten up a bit. Do I have to add <humor> </Humor> to all my posts, your an intelligent VTES player, you should beable to read between the lines. > -- > James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) > Raille

In article <38E8A4...@mich.com>, rai...@mich.com wrote: > <-- snip conspiracy theory --> > I was justpointing out that I and most people are acting on faith that > there is a actual real life rules team. The NJL has made no bones about > who the team is, yet other than the Point/lead person LSJ there has > never been any mention of name or personna of any other official Rules > team members, which mean that we all could be having hte wool pulled > over our eyes. Point taken, other than what LSJ says, I have no idea that the RT exists. IIRC, when LSJ got control of the rules from WotC, he wasn't obligated to set up a RT, but since he liked the way a RT worked, he set up his own. If there wasn't going to be a RT, what motivation did he have for telling us that the RT existed? Secondly, To play devil's advocate-- Does it matter if the RT exists? (aside from the obvious problem of having someone lie about the whole thing) LSJ is the final arbiter of the rules, so does it matter if the rule change has an LSJ or an RTR next to it? That doesn't change the way it is "officially" played. Even if it's a bad ruling, LSJ is still the one that has to be convinced the ruling needs to be fixed, right? As far as the whole anonymity of the RT is concerned, I assume that's to keep us on the newsgroup from badgering the RT to death. There could be other reasons, but they haven't occured to me. Rob Grau rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu [ quoted text not captured ]

rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu wrote: > Secondly, To play devil's advocate-- Does it matter if the RT exists? > (aside from the obvious problem of having someone lie about the whole > thing) LSJ is the final arbiter of the rules, so does it matter if the > rule change has an LSJ or an RTR next to it? That doesn't change the > way it is "officially" played. Even if it's a bad ruling, LSJ is still > the one that has to be convinced the ruling needs to be fixed, right? While it may or may not matter to most of the VTES community, it matters a great deal to the groups in the NJL. I realize that LSJ is under no obligation to have a rules team backing him up and that he has the final say on "official" rules. However, we are fulfilling our own needs and we are also under no obligation to join the rest of the community or pay any attention to LSJ's rulings. Most people on both sides of the fence are (at least nominally) interested in a united VTES community. However, before we consider disolving the NJL and join with the VEKN, I don't think it's unreasonable to get some straight answers regarding some of things that we took issue with when LSJ was first given the reigns. Noal McDonald National Jyhad League -- As of 3/30/2000, I am officially "over 30" and therefore unable to be trusted. If you don't know why, ask your parents. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 03 Apr 2000 13:25:13 GMT, Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote: >The reason for the anonymity of the rules team is something I never >understood. I don't recall that there was ever a straight answer >regarding the criteria for joining or composition of the rules team. I can answer the first one, at least. Anonymity = safety, much like the Second Foundation (for the literate out there). If the Rules Team members aren't known, then a number of charges from whiny players can't be levelled at them. They won't be pestered should they happen to win a tournament by using a deck which takes advantage of some recent rulings. (Everyone knows perfectly well that it may be easy to get to the finals, but once you're in there about anything can happen.) They can't be incessantly lobbied, something the US Congress could take a page from. They can't be hassled over which position they took on any ruling or debate, something which encourages them to actually argue unpopular positions. The US political system could pull THAT page too. In their place, LSJ gets pestered, lobbied, hassled, etc. The advantage is that it's a lot easier to select one single competent person with Teflon skin than it is to select five, six, or however many the Rules Team is, making it easier to select a Rules Team. Criteria for joining, as I understand it, include "Must be human", "Must have played the game for several years", "Must not be a crackpot from Michigan..." No, seriously, I have no idea. But I couldn't pass it up. ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

>> Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote: >> The reason for the anonymity of the rules team is something I >> never understood. I don't recall that there was ever a straight >> answer regarding the criteria for joining or composition of the >> rules team. > lor...@yahoo.com (Derek Ray) wrote: > I can answer the first one, at least. Anonymity = safety, much > like the Second Foundation (for the literate out there). > ... > In their place, LSJ gets pestered, lobbied, hassled, etc. The > advantage is that it's a lot easier to select one single competent > person with Teflon skin than it is to select five, six, or however > many the Rules Team is, making it easier to select a Rules Team. I suppose. Although, accountability is more of an issue to us than preventing someone from being lobbied or pestered. Constant communication and feedback with our players has kept those type of things from cropping up with our group. People tend to be a lot more reasonable when they're given the impression that they're being listened to. > Criteria for joining, as I understand it, include "Must be > human", "Must have played the game for several years", "Must > not be a crackpot from Michigan..." Hey now. Don't make me get all Michigan Militia on your ass. *grin* > No, seriously, I have no idea. But I couldn't pass it up. ;) Heh. Amusements notwithstanding, I would like to know more about how the rules team was selected. For example, was it a few people that have largely agreed with LSJ over the years or are they people that have contrasting (or opposing) viewpoints in why/how errata is issued? Was it people from playgroups in foreign countries or domestic only? Noal [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <38E8A4...@mich.com>, Raille <rai...@mich.com> writes >I was justpointing out that I and most people are acting on faith that >there is a actual real life rules team. I am working on faith that you exist. *shrug* Your point is? -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net http://www.obeah.demon.co.uk

rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu wrote: > Point taken, other than what LSJ says, I have no idea that the RT > exists. > > IIRC, when LSJ got control of the rules from WotC, he wasn't obligated > to set up a RT, but since he liked the way a RT worked, he set up his > own. If there wasn't going to be a RT, what motivation did he have for > telling us that the RT existed? > Secondly, To play devil's advocate-- Does it matter if the RT exists? > (aside from the obvious problem of having someone lie about the whole > thing) LSJ is the final arbiter of the rules, so does it matter if the > rule change has an LSJ or an RTR next to it? That doesn't change the > way it is "officially" played. Even if it's a bad ruling, LSJ is still > the one that has to be convinced the ruling needs to be fixed, right? > > As far as the whole anonymity of the RT is concerned, I assume that's to > keep us on the newsgroup from badgering the RT to death. There could be > other reasons, but they haven't occured to me. > > Rob Grau > rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu It matters note one bit that a RT exists or not. Like james highlighted, the existence of a RT is entirely based on Faith and its existence or lack thereof has no bearing on the validity of LSJ's rules. The only thing I wanted to highlight is no one other than LSJ knows who the RT is and no other than LSJ can prove or disaprrove that existence. This is the crux of the matter for several key people in the NJL. They live in a democracy, where you can at LEAST file freedom of information requests if the information is not freely made available. They do not wish to be subject to some secret cabal. Raille

On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 07:42:07 -0400, Raille <rai...@mich.com> wrote: >rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu wrote: > >> As far as the whole anonymity of the RT is concerned, I assume that's to >> keep us on the newsgroup from badgering the RT to death. There could be >> other reasons, but they haven't occured to me. >> >> Rob Grau >> rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu > >It matters note one bit that a RT exists or not. Like james Then pipe down about it already. Unless, of course, it DOES matter, in which case don't say it doesn't. >highlighted, the existence of a RT is entirely based on Faith and its >existence or lack thereof has no bearing on the validity of LSJ's rules. > >The only thing I wanted to highlight is no one other than LSJ knows who >the RT is and no other than LSJ can prove or disaprrove that existence. Except, of course, any member of the Rules Team who wished to become non-anonymous could also do that. Silly of them to do that, wouldn't you think, after seeing how much people like to bash LSJ for each set of rulings that come out? >This is the crux of the matter for several key people in the NJL. They >live in a democracy, where you can at LEAST file freedom of information >requests if the information is not freely made available. They do not >wish to be subject to some secret cabal. You know, these cutesy little veiled attacks are really dorky and obnoxious, and lead some of us to believe that the NJL (or at least some of its members) broke off in the time-honored tradition of "i'm taking my ball and going home", and that the whole thing is just a big attempt at a 'power' grab, as if there was any to BE grabbed. Seeing this commentary coming from one of the NJL's own rules team does nothing to disabuse me of that notion. I'm going to repeat what I said before: now is not the time to dork around and try to divide the V:TES community just because you didn't get what you wanted from the 7/7 rulings. That's what it comes down to, by the way - you didn't get what you wanted. Happens to a lot of us, and the rest of us just deal with it and move on. Freedom of information requests? What do you think this is, the U.S. Government, making decisions that will have an impact (usually bad) on every tidbit of our everyday life? No... it's a CCG. Get some PERSPECTIVE, guy. Sheesh. [ quoted text not captured ]

All right, children. Knock it off. This kind of bullshit isn't constructive for either side of the fence. If a merger is to be seriously discussed, productive discourse, not this hissy fit crap, needs to be taking place. If you can't speak like a mature adult, step away from the keyboard until you can. *sips coffee* An yes, I'm aware that it's ironic that I'm the one saying this. >> Raille <rai...@mich.com> wrote: >> It matters note one bit that a RT exists or not. Like james > Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Then pipe down about it already. Unless, of course, it DOES > matter, in which case don't say it doesn't. I'll state for the record that it _does_ matter to me and the playgroups that I represent. A lot of players lost faith in LSJ when 7/7 was issued and while some of us have attempted to repair bridges since, myself for example, some people still don't trust him. People want to know that a rules team, like a jury (as James Coupe compared it to), represents an adequate representation of the constituency, not just one guy making all of the decisions. >> This is the crux of the matter for several key people in the NJL. >> They live in a democracy, where you can at LEAST file freedom of >> information requests if the information is not freely made >> available. They do not wish to be subject to some secret cabal. This was a tad more Oliver Stone sounding than was really necessary. However, as I've said previously, before the NJL gives up its soveriegnty, I don't think it's unreasonable to want to know more about rules decisions are being made. > You know, these cutesy little veiled attacks are really dorky > and obnoxious, and lead some of us to believe that the NJL (or > at least some of its members) broke off in the time-honored > tradition of "i'm taking my ball and going home", and that the > whole thing is just a big attempt at a 'power' grab, as if there > was any to BE grabbed. Speaking of "dorky and obnoxious"... *shakes head* Damn straight we took our ball and went home. We didn't like the direction the game was being taken and we no longer wanted to play by the rules issued by LSJ and his RT. Since that created a vacuum, we created our own rules team. It was never an issue about "power". Hell, Bernie has always been reluctant to take the mantle of leadership that was pushed on him. > I'm going to repeat what I said before: now is not the time to > dork around and try to divide the V:TES community just because > you didn't get what you wanted from the 7/7 rulings. That's what > it comes down to, by the way - you didn't get what you wanted. > Happens to a lot of us, and the rest of us just deal with it and > move on. Guess what. We moved on. I'll be straight up honest. The average player in Kalmazoo, MI doesn't give a sh*t what rules some guy in England or North Carolina plays with. The NJL is the only game in town in Michigan and that's the only community that the local players care about. After the horrid prize support at Origins for the last few years very few of us bother to show up there at all...so there's not a whole lot of incentive for them to go out of the state. The idea of a "united VTES community" is one that falls on a lot of deaf ears in this state. In fact, it's because of attitudes like Derek's that convinced us to split off in the first place. When 7/7 came down, nobody wanted to have a rational, productive discussion about the direction of the game. A great many of newsgroup folks had the tone of "Like it or leave it." So we left it, plain and simple. If you want us back, the rational, productive discussion about the future direction of the game is going to have to take place. We are not about to just go, "Oops! Silly us!" and join the VEKN without our concerns being addressed to our satisfaction. And that's the bottom line cause Stone Cold Noal said so. Noal McDonald National Jyhad League [ quoted text not captured ]

> All right, children. Knock it off. This kind of bullshit isn't > constructive for either side of the fence. If a merger is to be > seriously discussed, productive discourse, not this hissy fit crap, > needs to be taking place. If you can't speak like a mature adult, step > away from the keyboard until you can. Easy now, folks! ;) > I'll state for the record that it _does_ matter to me and the playgroups > that I represent. A lot of players lost faith in LSJ when 7/7 was > issued and while some of us have attempted to repair bridges since, > myself for example, some people still don't trust him. People want to > know that a rules team, like a jury (as James Coupe compared it to), > represents an adequate representation of the constituency, not just one > guy making all of the decisions. I think only LSJ himself can and should answer your question about the RT. He has to decide whether it would be detrimental to the work of this RT or not if questions about it would be answered. I think he has a difficult choice to make on this toppic, but in whichever way he will end up, he should make a statement. I think that's something he wouldn't deny the NJL players. :) > This was a tad more Oliver Stone sounding than was really necessary. > However, as I've said previously, before the NJL gives up its > soveriegnty, I don't think it's unreasonable to want to know more about > rules decisions are being made. Honestly, I also don't think that your wish to have some (for you and your group) important questions answered is something unreasonable. > Damn straight we took our ball and went home. We didn't like the > direction the game was being taken and we no longer wanted to play by > the rules issued by LSJ and his RT. Since that created a vacuum, we > created our own rules team. It was never an issue about "power". Hell, > Bernie has always been reluctant to take the mantle of leadership that > was pushed on him. > > I'll be straight up honest. The average player in Kalmazoo, MI doesn't > give a sh*t what rules some guy in England or North Carolina plays with. > The NJL is the only game in town in Michigan and that's the only > community that the local players care about. After the horrid prize > support at Origins for the last few years very few of us bother to show > up there at all...so there's not a whole lot of incentive for them to go > out of the state. The idea of a "united VTES community" is one that > falls on a lot of deaf ears in this state. I'm really sad to hear that. I still don't give up the hope of ending the dispute between two groups of VTES-players. > > In fact, it's because of attitudes like Derek's that convinced us to > split off in the first place. When 7/7 came down, nobody wanted to have > a rational, productive discussion about the direction of the game. A > great many of newsgroup folks had the tone of "Like it or leave it." Hm, you know, it definitely *was* a bit like you say. I remember being very upset with the enormous changes 6/23 and 7/7. Yes, there have been such voices like Derek's. However, that is past, and we have *the perfect* opportunity to close the rift and undo what has happened after the tremor of 7/7. ;) > So > we left it, plain and simple. If you want us back, the rational, > productive discussion about the future direction of the game is going to > have to take place. We are not about to just go, "Oops! Silly us!" and > join the VEKN without our concerns being addressed to our satisfaction. I grant you that. And I also think that rational discussion is necessary, also for the benefit of the game itself! Ah, and Noal, please, do only approach your keyboar in a coffe- saturated state, can you do that? ;) Carl (and no, this is not an official statement :) ) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8ccuis$vc2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote: > >> Raille <rai...@mich.com> wrote: > >> It matters note one bit that a RT exists or not. Like james > > > Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Then pipe down about it already. Unless, of course, it DOES > > matter, in which case don't say it doesn't. > > I'll state for the record that it _does_ matter to me and the playgroups > that I represent. A lot of players lost faith in LSJ when 7/7 was > issued and while some of us have attempted to repair bridges since, > myself for example, some people still don't trust him. People want to > know that a rules team, like a jury (as James Coupe compared it to), > represents an adequate representation of the constituency, not just one > guy making all of the decisions. LSJ has already discussed how the RT works. http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=441052159 I don't understand why you can trust Scott as a rules source, etcetra, but you cannot trust him to have a rules team. WotC and WW trust him to be the Net.Rep and rules source, if you or the people in your playgroups aren't ever going to trust him, then debating the issue everytime "rules team" gets mentioned isn't going to resolve anything. If that's the case, the people involved need to take other steps (like emailing WW) to resolve the issue of trust in LSJ. > > >> This is the crux of the matter for several key people in the NJL. > >> They live in a democracy, where you can at LEAST file freedom of > >> information requests if the information is not freely made > >> available. They do not wish to be subject to some secret cabal. > > This was a tad more Oliver Stone sounding than was really necessary. > However, as I've said previously, before the NJL gives up its > soveriegnty, I don't think it's unreasonable to want to know more about > rules decisions are being made. On this point I should ask: What do you expect from a Rules Team? What I have gathered from the discussion is that you expect names and decision rationale, the latter of which I though (but could be wrong) was provided by LSJ. Rob Grau rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu [ quoted text not captured ]

prea...@utanet.at wrote: > I think only LSJ himself can and should answer your question about the > RT. He has to decide whether it would be detrimental to the work of > this RT or not if questions about it would be answered. I think he has > a difficult choice to make on this toppic, but in whichever way he > will > end up, he should make a statement. I *have* made a statement. [LSJ 05-FEB-1999] http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=441052159 -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.geocities.com/vtesrep [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 14:35:09 GMT, Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote: >All right, children. Knock it off. This kind of bullshit isn't >constructive for either side of the fence. If a merger is to be >seriously discussed, productive discourse, not this hissy fit crap, >needs to be taking place. If you can't speak like a mature adult, step >away from the keyboard until you can. (shrug) Leash your players. =) YOUR posts are civil, at least - but conspiracy insinuations and secret cabal? It gets annoying. >*sips coffee* > >An yes, I'm aware that it's ironic that I'm the one saying this. Aw. Spoiled my fun =) >>> Raille <rai...@mich.com> wrote: >>> It matters note one bit that a RT exists or not. Like james > >> Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Then pipe down about it already. Unless, of course, it DOES >> matter, in which case don't say it doesn't. > >I'll state for the record that it _does_ matter to me and the playgroups >that I represent. A lot of players lost faith in LSJ when 7/7 was This was my take on the issue as well... which is why I found it odd to see that posted. >issued and while some of us have attempted to repair bridges since, >myself for example, some people still don't trust him. People want to >know that a rules team, like a jury (as James Coupe compared it to), >represents an adequate representation of the constituency, not just one >guy making all of the decisions. This is possible without revealing the identities of the Rules Team, you know. It just requires confirmation from the people LSJ reports to that "yes, he has established a rule team, and he threw darts at a map of the USA to find where to take the RT members from", or whatever. Maybe chase after them, since apparently some of your players won't trust anything LSJ says? >>> This is the crux of the matter for several key people in the NJL. >>> They live in a democracy, where you can at LEAST file freedom of >>> information requests if the information is not freely made >>> available. They do not wish to be subject to some secret cabal. > >This was a tad more Oliver Stone sounding than was really necessary. Ya think? >However, as I've said previously, before the NJL gives up its >soveriegnty, I don't think it's unreasonable to want to know more about >rules decisions are being made. Not unreasonable at all. But it's worth noting that LSJ himself has said that any compelling argument made can be cause to review a ruling. It wouldn't be too bad to go through all the rulings from the ground up, either, just to "Make Sure". >Speaking of "dorky and obnoxious"... *shakes head* Hey, he ain't the ONLY one who can make little snippy remarks. =) >> I'm going to repeat what I said before: now is not the time to >> dork around and try to divide the V:TES community just because >> you didn't get what you wanted from the 7/7 rulings. That's what >> it comes down to, by the way - you didn't get what you wanted. >> Happens to a lot of us, and the rest of us just deal with it and >> move on. > >Guess what. We moved on. You know, the tone of Raille's message didn't strike me as "moving on." Did it come across that way to you? It came across a lot more as vindictive and nasty to me. >I'll be straight up honest. The average player in Kalmazoo, MI doesn't >give a sh*t what rules some guy in England or North Carolina plays with. >The NJL is the only game in town in Michigan and that's the only >community that the local players care about. After the horrid prize >support at Origins for the last few years very few of us bother to show >up there at all...so there's not a whole lot of incentive for them to go >out of the state. The idea of a "united VTES community" is one that >falls on a lot of deaf ears in this state. And with the crappy prize support that was (not?) there, who can really blame them? Without an incentive to match up with the rest of the world, it's tough to convince people they should do anything any other way than what they like, and when there are a bunch of people near them who feel the same way, it becomes not especially relevant to the rest of the world either. When it results in multiple rules versions of the same game being run at GenCon, for example, it becomes a lot more relevant. It begins to cause a problem with V:TES's image and marketing, which hurts BOTH groups - if new players don't arrive, WW doesn't make money. If WW doesn't make money, we don't get new toys. >In fact, it's because of attitudes like Derek's that convinced us to >split off in the first place. When 7/7 came down, nobody wanted to have >a rational, productive discussion about the direction of the game. A >great many of newsgroup folks had the tone of "Like it or leave it." So >we left it, plain and simple. If you want us back, the rational, >productive discussion about the future direction of the game is going to >have to take place. We are not about to just go, "Oops! Silly us!" and >join the VEKN without our concerns being addressed to our satisfaction. You misunderstand my attitude, I think. It's certainly not "like it or leave it." But I -do- get an attitude problem when faced by hyperbolic* rants, such as Raille's. I personally wouldn't mind having a rational, productive discussion, as i think most of my posts on this have shown. But I also wouldn't mind if while we're having the rational, productive discussion, others didn't leap in on the side and post random conspiracy-theory glop. =) (*I don't think that's how I'm supposed to mangle "hyperbole". ;) >And that's the bottom line cause Stone Cold Noal said so. Can you smell what the Crock-Pot's cookin? ...hmm [ quoted text not captured ]

lor...@yahoo.com (Derek Ray) wrote: > I'm going to repeat what I said before: now is not the time to dork > around and try to divide the V:TES community just because you didn't > get what you wanted from the 7/7 rulings. That's what it comes down > to, by the way - you didn't get what you wanted. Happens to a lot of > us, and the rest of us just deal with it and move on. What we don't want is to have "move on" become "move away". That's what happened for a lot of people when the card backs changed, and what happened for some people when the 7/7 rulings were issued. Are these rulings so sacrosanct that they cannot be discussed or improved? --- Eric Pettersen pett "at" cgl "dot" ucsf "dot" edu (NeXTmail capable)

lor...@yahoo.com (Derek Ray) wrote: > (shrug) Leash your players. =) Not my job. *smiles* Raille and I are equals and I'm not a person given to bossing others around. Esp. my elders. > YOUR posts are civil, at least They are? Since when? :) > This is possible without revealing the identities of the > Rules Team, you know. It just requires confirmation from > the people LSJ reports to that "yes, he has established > a rule team, Yes, I'm aware of that. I'm not interested in a mug shots and medical history of each member of LSJ's rules team. I think that's also true of Raille. What I am interested in, is the criteria that LSJ used in selecting his rules team. One of the things most on the NJL players want to know is what our role will be if the two groups merge and how much input we'll have in the direction of the game. One of the players in my local group stated that he wanted to see Michigan represented in LSJ's rules team. Obviously, that's an issue to be discussed privately in light of LSJ's desire for an anonymous rules team. I'm sure we have a cooler head somewhere among us. *smile* > Maybe chase after them, since apparently some of your > players won't trust anything LSJ says? I think some diplomacy can smooth the troubled waters here. A spirit of cooperation rather than antagonism is certainly called for, esp. since LSJ's leadership isn't going to change unless he gets sick of dealing with hot heads like myself. *grin* > Not unreasonable at all. But it's worth noting that LSJ himself has > said that any compelling argument made can be cause to review a > ruling. It wouldn't be too bad to go through all the rulings from the > ground up, either, just to "Make Sure". Ayup. LSJ has even expressed interested in people helping him clear out the cobwebs. Seems to me like a good opportunity to get our folks involved. >> Guess what. We moved on. > > You know, the tone of Raille's message didn't strike me as "moving > on." Did it come across that way to you? It came across a lot more > as vindictive and nasty to me. Knowing Raille, it sounded more frustrated and impatient than anything else. I'm only surprised it was coming from him, not me. > And with the crappy prize support that was (not?) there, > who can really blame them? Fortunately, White Wolf has a better reputation of supporting its products so I'm going to make the trip this year to both Origins (passed on going last year) and GenCon (not been since '88) barring unforseen events. I'm hopeful I'll return with a positive experience to encourage people to make the trip in '01. Besides, after all the grief I've given him, I owe LSJ a beer. > When it results in multiple rules versions of the same game being > run at GenCon, for example, it becomes a lot more relevant. It > begins to cause a problem with V:TES's image and marketing, which > hurts BOTH groups - if new players don't arrive, WW doesn't make > money. If WW doesn't make money, we don't get new toys. Depends on how it's played. If our events specify that we use alternate rulings, it shouldn't have an adverse impact. Either way, for several reasons, this is an important issue to settle as soon as possbile. > You misunderstand my attitude, I think. It's certainly not "like > it or leave it." But I -do- get an attitude problem when faced > by hyperbolic* rants, such as Raille's. Well, rants are part of posting in newsgroups. This group has a much higher signal to noise ratio than most groups outside of the comp.* lists. We should all be proud of that. But we still need to be patient when others are not (which I'm certainly guilty of from time to time). It helps return things to a more civil tone. I'm certain that when 7/7 came down, some people sounded a lot harsher than they intended. That's one of the limitations of text only communication. Periods of transition can certainly lead to feelings of resentment. Hopefully, we can take things a little easier this time around. > I personally wouldn't mind having a rational, productive discussion, > as i think most of my posts on this have shown. But I also wouldn't > mind if while we're having the rational, productive discussion, > others didn't leap in on the side and post random conspiracy-theory > glop. =) On thing I've learned after being a patron of BBSs for the last 15 years is that people are always going to jump in with their $0.02 in a public forum, either because they think they're being helpful or because they're frustrated with what they're seeing. It happens. Best just to ignore the clueless speculations and the flames and focus on what really matters. > (*I don't think that's how I'm supposed to mangle "hyperbole". ;) Works for me. I'm a Unix sys admin, not an English teacher. > Can you smell what the Crock-Pot's cookin? Meatballs in Bar-B-Q sauce? Regards, Noal -- "What you cannot enforce, do not command." -- Socrates [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8cdb4m$4v36$1...@cgl.ucsf.edu>, Eric Pettersen <pe...@address.is.in.sig> writes >Are these rulings so >sacrosanct that they cannot be discussed or improved? Indeed not. Consider that RtoI is now banned (though the official erratum still exists), and Tomb was updated to a better option. However, it is better to work as one, rather than to fragment as many. Unity through diversity. [ quoted text not captured ]

> I *have* made a statement. [LSJ 05-FEB-1999] > http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=441052159 Actually, I meant to give a statement *now* (not reciting an old one), adressing the current situation. But anyways a statement is a statement. :) Carl (not meant to be ...pesky?) [ quoted text not captured ]

prea...@utanet.at wrote: > > > I *have* made a statement. [LSJ 05-FEB-1999] > > http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=441052159 > > Actually, I meant to give a statement *now* (not reciting an old one), > adressing the current situation. > > But anyways a statement is a statement. :) > > Carl > (not meant to be ...pesky?) > Perhaps LSSJ Could inquire of his RT members if any would like to go public? I personnaly would still bounce ?'s of LSJ beuase he is the spokesman. Raille

Derek Ray wrote: > This is possible without revealing the identities of the Rules Team, > you know. It just requires confirmation from the people LSJ reports > to that "yes, he has established a rule team, and he threw darts at a > map of the USA to find where to take the RT members from", or > whatever. Maybe chase after them, since apparently some of your > players won't trust anything LSJ says? Basically we lost veral players because they swore that theywould not play the game again until that ******** LSJ was removed s the Netrep. This is why I posted the thread did, so th the people that simple refuse to have ANY contact with LSJ, his "yes" men and the entire WOTC/DCI theme. They ae s livid about this that the mere mention of LSJin the guys house almost got me thrown out. > >>> This is the crux of the matter for several key people in the NJL. > >>> They live in a democracy, where you can at LEAST file freedom of > >>> information requests if the information is not freely made > >>> available. They do not wish to be subject to some secret cabal. > > > >This was a tad more Oliver Stone sounding than was really necessary. This came from the people above. They really do think its a conspiracy. > Ya think? sometime I do think, othertimes the old grey matter is onstrike. Raille

> Basically we lost veral players because they swore that theywould not > play the game again until that ******** LSJ was removed s the Netrep. I personally can't believe what your wrote! There are people in this world who have *that* extreme notions about a *game*? (Granted, it's the best game ever...) Why are they hostile towards LSJ? Because after a *very* long time of neglect and impossible stupid rulings a man with a lot of experience and a memory like a computer (all those citings of links and stuff...:) ) got the job of handling all the rules? That's plain dumb attitude. Excuse me. :( > > This is why I posted the thread did, so th the people that simple > refuse to have ANY contact with LSJ, his "yes" men and the entire > WOTC/DCI theme. Well, you *do* have a problem with your keyboard, or do you speak like you write? :) > > They ae s livid about this that the mere mention of LSJin the guys house > almost got me thrown out. That's prjdce (prejudice, I try to get a hang on your style :) ), I guess they would have trouble with *any* rules authority they don't know. > This came from the people above. They really do think its a conspiracy. Oh my god! VTES is a game *about* conspiracy, *not* a conspiracy. If they cannot distinguish between the game and real life, not all is lost! I recommend the Institution (Hunting Ground, of course) for getting a grip on things. :) Do these people think that the takeover by WW is also a ruse, that WotC or LSJ devised it to make them disband the NJL? *shakes head* Okay, how many people are really that way in the NJL? They can't be a majority, can they? Otherwise I'd have to re-evaluate my statements about NJL and VEKN overcoming their differences... ;) Carl (I hope you noticed some sentences are rather sarcastic, yes?) :) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <38EC9E...@mich.com>, Raille <rai...@mich.com> writes >Basically we lost veral players because they swore that theywould not >play the game again until that ******** LSJ was removed s the Netrep. > >This is why I posted the thread did, so th the people that simple >refuse to have ANY contact with LSJ, his "yes" men and the entire >WOTC/DCI theme. > >They ae s livid about this that the mere mention of LSJin the guys house >almost got me thrown out. I am afraid that you are dealing with irrational loonies. I would suggest finding people in control of their faculties, and who are capable of controlling themselves when you mention someone's name. LSJ is not the problem. These people seemingly do not understand that all rulings are open to debate and clarification, and that if a convincing argument is made that LSJ and the Rules Team will listen. Consider the banning of RtoI, following the wholly unwieldy errata, and the altering of the errata on Tomb, for instance. As an alternative, that these people you are referring to do not understand this would suggest they lack net access, and have not encountered the Rules Team and LSJ online, themselves. Who, may I ask, was their conduit to the situation going on, who would have been the one responsible for not explaining the situation fully to them? That person is the one who should be strung up, not LSJ. Any person acting as a conduit for information should act as a conduit for *all* relevant information. That LSJ was an approachable net-rep who would listen to convincing counter arguments has always been apparent, and would be relevant information to be passed on. One wonders if the entire NJL split was brought about by the incompetence and irresponsibility of people being wholly unable to accurately report the goings on of the situation. [ quoted text not captured ]

rai...@mich.com wrote: > Perhaps LSSJ Could inquire of his RT members if any would > like to go public? Well, if LSJ wants to keep his team anonymous, I doubt that he will do so. What works for us, Dave, may not work for them. Noal -- "What you cannot enforce, do not command." -- Socrates [ quoted text not captured ]

Before I issue my responses, I have to say that I am personally embarassed by all of this and I think it's time I took up Pokemon where the average player is comparatively mature. *shakes head* rai...@mich.com wrote: > Basically we lost veral players because they swore that theywould > not play the game again until that ******** LSJ was removed s the > Netrep. This is why I posted the thread did, so th the people > that simple refuse to have ANY contact with LSJ, his "yes" men and > the entire WOTC/DCI theme. Who are you and what did you do with Dave? This is the type of topic that should be discussed in our mailing list, not here. I've just raised the issue again in our mailing list whether or not merging with VEKN is something people have interest in. If the people that have an unreasoning hatred of LSJ are the same people that never show up to tournaments (NJL or VEKN) than I can't see how their input is all that relevant. > They ae s livid about this that the mere mention of LSJin > the guys house almost got me thrown out. Is this how you want to represent us Dave? Last I checked, we're not the Michigan Militia, but rather a group of people comprised mostly of mature adults. > sometime I do think, othertimes the old grey matter is onstrike. Maybe your keyboard should be on strike when your grey matter is. ----------------------------------- > prea...@utanet.at wrote: > Why are they hostile towards LSJ? He represents a drastic change in the game that they were playing. They got angry and he was the most obvious target. > That's prjdce (prejudice, I try to get a hang on your style :) ), Hey, now. Let's try to refrain from taking personal shots, shall we? > I guess they would have trouble with *any* rules authority they > don't know. Gamers? Problems with authority? That can't be it! > Okay, how many people are really that way in the NJL? They > can't be a majority, can they? Dear god, I hope not. ----------------------------------- > James Coupe <ve...@obeah.demon.co.uk> wrote: > LSJ is not the problem. No, but he does represent the problem. > These people seemingly do not understand that all rulings are > open to debate and clarification, and that if a convincing > argument is made that LSJ and the Rules Team will listen. It sure as hell didn't look like it during the aftermath of 7/7 to me, to be honest. In fact, I'd say that the apparent attitude of LSJ and co. has been much improved over the years. I'd like to think it has on our side of the fence as well. > One wonders if the entire NJL split was brought about by the > incompetence and irresponsibility of people being wholly unable > to accurately report the goings on of the situation. Ahem. *cough**cough* James, normally you can be a quite reasonable person to talk to and other times you come off as damned condescending. I was one of the people that most strongly advocated the split. Dave (Raille) was actually advocating otherwise. If you're going to level accusations of "incompetence and irresponsibility," it might be best that you aim them at the right people. The problem was that the sudden, drastic changes in the way that the game was played as well as the sudden change in the criteria for issuing errata brought on a lot of anger and resentment. The seemingly "love it or leave it" attitude that was being propagated by quite a few people on the newsgroup only solidified our desire to split off from the main community. I'd like to think those "love it or leave it" attitudes have left the newsgroup. If not, welcome to the status quo because if nothing has changed, nothing will change any time soon. Noal McDonald National Jyhad League [ quoted text not captured ]

prea...@utanet.at wrote: I answered most of this in my reply to Noal. Same thread. But to sum up, your basically right. Raille

James Coupe wrote: > > In article <38EC9E...@mich.com>, Raille <rai...@mich.com> writes > >Basically we lost veral players because they swore that theywould not > >play the game again until that ******** LSJ was removed s the Netrep. > > > >This is why I posted the thread did, so th the people that simple > >refuse to have ANY contact with LSJ, his "yes" men and the entire > >WOTC/DCI theme. > > > >They ae s livid about this that the mere mention of LSJin the guys house > >almost got me thrown out. > > I am afraid that you are dealing with irrational loonies. I would > suggest finding people in control of their faculties, and who are > capable of controlling themselves when you mention someone's name. Now that you mention it, you may be right. However they were available to play. Fortunately I have had non contact with them for the last 5 months. > LSJ is not the problem. These people seemingly do not understand that > all rulings are open to debate and clarification, and that if a > convincing argument is made that LSJ and the Rules Team will listen. > Consider the banning of RtoI, following the wholly unwieldy errata, and > the altering of the errata on Tomb, for instance. They feel left out. LSJ is part of the problem , the other half of the equation, as I see it, is that these same players have a poor grasp of the skills needed to make a valid arguement. So while they may have a point, they cannot express it in a cohesive mannner. > As an alternative, that these people you are referring to do not > understand this would suggest they lack net access, and have not > encountered the Rules Team and LSJ online, themselves. Who, may I ask, > was their conduit to the situation going on, who would have been the one > responsible for not explaining the situation fully to them? That person > is the one who should be strung up, not LSJ. Any person acting as a > conduit for information should act as a conduit for *all* relevant > information. That LSJ was an approachable net-rep who would listen to > convincing counter arguments has always been apparent, and would be > relevant information to be passed on. Weird thing is They DO have net access. Again they have purposefully refused to access the information. > One wonders if the entire NJL split was brought about by the > incompetence and irresponsibility of people being wholly unable to > accurately report the goings on of the situation. No. But these people did help push the rest of us in that direction. They accunted for perhaps 30% of the force that split us off. Now that they no longer push to maintain the seperation, the whole arguement has cooled off and more level heads like Noal <g> and I are actually working to mend fences as much as possible. Really! > -- > James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) Raille

Noal McDonald wrote: > Who are you and what did you do with Dave? > I let Ernie do some mental control. Anyhow I do believe, that James and Carl are begining to see a small part of the difficulty that some people do have with the game. This is good. The question is, I, one prince, know of at least two people out of the loop, who have for all purposes stopped playing and more importantly to WW, no buying cards. What needs to be addressed is how to mollify their concerns and bring these same people BACK into the community. If there are 2 people in each region for each prince who no longer plays for these or similar reason, your talking perhaps 200 players, that we are NOT serving. How do we get them back into the game? Raille.

In article <38EDD4...@mich.com>, Raille <rai...@mich.com> writes >> I am afraid that you are dealing with irrational loonies. I would >> suggest finding people in control of their faculties, and who are >> capable of controlling themselves when you mention someone's name. > >Now that you mention it, you may be right. If so, I'm afraid it throws your argument out of the window. The rules are not written for loonies. Would you advocate banning Elysium: The Arboretum if they decided that it was all just a bunch of tree-hugging hippy crap? >They feel left out. >Weird thing is They DO have net access. They excluded themselves. Indeed, most of us had good reason to be *very* left out by all previous Rules Teams. I can only cite *one* occasion on which I felt I had *any* impact on a ruling made by a previous Rules Team, which was as a result of my post <4sde8HAj...@bgrace.demon.co.uk> which resulted in the ruling: Subject: Re: Allies gaining life Date: 7 Jul 1997 19:22:34 GMT Organization: Wizards of the Coast, Inc. Message-ID: <5prflq$3...@news.wizards.com> >LSJ is part of the problem , the other half of the >equation, as I see it, is that these same players have a poor grasp of >the skills needed to make a valid arguement. So while they may have a >point, they cannot express it in a cohesive mannner. The inability to express oneself is less of a problem than it might be. Peer review is a good one, especially with e-mail. "Hey, Dave! I just wrote this about why I think Return to Innocence should actually cost X pool instead of X blood, and why I think it would be a much better and more useful erratum than the current one. But I'm not sure if it makes sense. I know what it's supposed to say, but I'm a bit unsure as to whether it reads properly. Could you take a look and mail me back with comments?" The internet is absolutely superb for this sort of thing, where you can just copy a document around willy-nilly, and incorporate changes to someone within seconds. >Again they have purposefully >refused to access the information. I am reminded of people sticking their fingers in their eyes saying "La la la la la! I'm not listening!" (Or, from The Simpsons, "I can't hear your Milhouse! I'm wearing a Jacuzzi suit!") As much as I despise unwarranted internet evangelism, we are living in an information age. The 20th century has been dominated in large parts by the ability to obtain intelligence and information on opponents. I refuse to disenfranchise those who *cannot* listen, but those who *will not* listen when they have a clear opportunity to do so bring the consequences upon themselves. Precis of information is not the same as the information itself - how many of the NJL players who do not read the net groups actually fully understand every nook and cranny, or have the opportunity to, of each argument raised in favour and against certain points? Those who *can* participate, even passively as observers, disenfranchise themselves by not doing so. -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net http://www.obeah.demon.co.uk

In article <8cist6$kg6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Noal McDonald <dharzhak@my- deja.com> writes >> James Coupe <ve...@obeah.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> LSJ is not the problem. > >No, but he does represent the problem. Really? From this side, it does seem like the problem is with immature players with no intelligence, of the sort that Raille describes. >> These people seemingly do not understand that all rulings are >> open to debate and clarification, and that if a convincing >> argument is made that LSJ and the Rules Team will listen. > >It sure as hell didn't look like it during the aftermath of 7/7 to me, >to be honest. Perhaps rage clouded peoples' vision? I would also assume that LSJ is not in personal contact (i.e. meets in person) every member of his Rules Team, but contacts some of them via e- mail. *ALL* debates of this nature need a proper debate, with arguments from both sides. There is no point just caving in immediately. Also, there needs to be some empirical (why am I always incapable of spelling that word) evidence from somewhere that the then current errata wasn't working, in whatever fashion. There was a lot of evidence that *something* needed to be done with, say, Return to Innocence (as the most obvious example). The fact that an argument needs to be proved, to a certain extent, that the debate was ongoing such that new points were brought up at random intervals and that LSJ is not just going to be able to stick his head in at someone's house and say "Hey, Joe - what do you think about this?" mean that there was *inevitably* going to be some delay. Also, since LSJ had obviously already put time and thought into the creation of the errata, it is inevitable that he would advocate the use of those errata. Until better and more convincing errata came along, they would stand. > In fact, I'd say that the apparent attitude of LSJ and >co. has been much improved over the years. Try 1 month. In the post cited below, LSJ noted that convincing arguments and evidence would overturn any previous E/R/C or introduce a new one. Subject: The Rules Team Date: Tue, 04 Aug 1998 17:46:37 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Message-ID: <6q7hds$568$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> http://www.deja.com/forms/mid.shtml will help if you don't, as I do, squirrel most of rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad onto your hard disk. >> One wonders if the entire NJL split was brought about by the >> incompetence and irresponsibility of people being wholly unable >> to accurately report the goings on of the situation. > >Ahem. *cough**cough* > >James, normally you can be a quite reasonable person to talk to and >other times you come off as damned condescending. I know. >I was one of the >people that most strongly advocated the split. Dave (Raille) was >actually advocating otherwise. If you're going to level accusations of >"incompetence and irresponsibility," it might be best that you aim them >at the right people. Indeed. I posited a suggestion, not an absolute statement. One cannot split without followers. And it seems from what you and Raille have said, these followers were not properly informed about the situation. > >The problem was that the sudden, drastic changes in the way that the >game was played as well as the sudden change in the criteria for issuing >errata brought on a lot of anger and resentment. *LOTS* of people had been arguing for months about just how bad those cards were and how much they needed to be fixed. Even the NJL has done some of its own fixing. Had the new Rules Team *not* acted, just as many insults and "The Rules Team is CRAP! It is destroying our game!" would have flown around. >The seemingly "love it >or leave it" attitude that was being propagated by quite a few people on >the newsgroup only solidified our desire to split off from the main >community. Again, I note the Message ID given above. If you had already solidified and decided to split off within one month of a piece of errata being issued, there was never anything that could be done. [ quoted text not captured ]

>Anyhow I do believe, that James and Carl are begining to see a small >part of the difficulty that some people do have with the game. This is >good. I can certainly appreciate the issues raised here. Although I fully respect LSJ's knowledge of the game, and have received and used clarifications of play from him, I will admit that I do not personally agree with every ruling made historically by the Rules Team in regards to the game. However, since it is important that the same rules are used widely across the VtES-playing community, I have opted for playing with *all* the rulings given rather than dropping a certain number (and as a result causing additional confusion to the local play environment). I would assume that part of the problem/confusion here is that: 1) People do not know who LSJ is, and maybe unaware of the extent of his knowledge, nor his experience in playing the game 2) People may have taken offence of the fact that the Rules Team have made decisions independently of any input they themselves would have otheriwise given 3) People may not be aware of the difference between off-the-cuff advice from LSJ himself, and points of play examined and agreed upon by the *entire* Rules Team. It may be worth examining these points in some detail to alleviate everybody's fears? Perhaps a 'Rules Team Policy' needs to be drafted and distributed so that all players can rest assured that their beloved game is not being 'tampered' or 'abused' in any way... (If such material already exists, I have not found it or had it brought to my attention to date...) >The question is, I, one prince, know of at least two people out of the >loop, who have for all purposes stopped playing and more importantly to >WW, no buying cards. More disturbingly, if White-Wolf produce a new version of the game that includes all the Rules Team decisions with no compromise, then would anyone in the NJL (or elsewhere) ignore the new edition to continue play with their own set of rules and errata instead? This would certainly do more harm than good... >What needs to be addressed is how to mollify their concerns and bring >these same people BACK into the community. If there are 2 people in >each region for each prince who no longer plays for these or similar >reason, your talking perhaps 200 players, that we are NOT serving. > >How do we get them back into the game? If there is a substantial number of players that are unhappy with the Rule Team rulings then perhaps we should look at the particular rulings that cause this friction in more detail...? If a slight compromise in regards rules results in twice as many people buying the new WW edition, and twice as many people taking part in 'official' tournaments, then this can only be considered a Good Thing., surely..? Regards, Mike Nudd VEKN Prince of London mi...@vekn.org.uk ; mi...@darkness.org.uk http://www.vtes.org.uk

> > One wonders if the entire NJL split was brought about by the > incompetence and irresponsibility of people being wholly unable to > accurately report the goings on of the situation. > > -- > James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) > Golly, james, we ARE in a conciliatory mood this month aren't we?! i think there's a bit of revisionist history going on here. The NJL weren't the only people who were hacked off with the 7/7 rulings, and anyone who wants a full list of the complacently slow-minded minions of chaos and entropy needs only to wade through about eight virtual tons of diatribe to get it [apart from card-carrying members of the NJL, me and Sorrow were pretty vocal about it IIRC]. It always seemed to me that our strongest argument was against the principle of amending the texts of cards, because it meant that players without net access just had to take the word of players who did have net access that the card did what they said it did. i understood why people wanted RtI and the Tomb kneecapped. i just thought that there was a price to pay, which they hadn't thought over sufficiently. Now i think that this is all water under the bridge. Having explained why i thought card-fixes were such a bad idea, i never really thought about splitting or inciting others to split, largely because i didn't think there were enough of us locally to get away with it. And the game is doing just fine, and is going to be revitalised under White Wolf's benign rulership. Texts will once again be readable as such, which will restore an important measure of independence to the average player. i'm really glad that in this new atmosphere the NJL may rejoin the fold, which they can do with honour COMPLETELY intact having, in my view, provided an important source of opposition to what i still think was a political misjudgement by the rules team. [ quoted text not captured ]

Mike Nudd wrote: > More disturbingly, if White-Wolf produce a new version of the game > that includes all the Rules Team decisions with no compromise, then > would anyone in the NJL (or elsewhere) ignore the new edition to > continue play with their own set of rules and errata instead? This > would certainly do more harm than good... The NJL is actively working to bring the main points of contention out into the open with dialog between key personnel from both camps. When or perhaps if WW release a new rules book and expension, I would guess that most of will move over to that format, ending, or at least quieting some of the arguements. > >How do we get them back into the game? > > If there is a substantial number of players that are unhappy with the > Rule Team rulings then perhaps we should look at the particular > rulings that cause this friction in more detail...? > > If a slight compromise in regards rules results in twice as many > people buying the new WW edition, and twice as many people taking part > in 'official' tournaments, then this can only be considered a Good > Thing., surely..? a Very Good thing. Truely! > Regards, > > Mike Nudd Raille

That was very well put. Raille.