So, I've been finding posting in the rules forum somewhat frustrating as of late. It seems like, without a rules citation, no one really believes anyone unless it's one of maybe three specific community members (whose knowledge I don't question in the slightest). That being said, I wonder if you guys might like to formulate some sort of test (similar to the mod test) that would give someone slightly more credibility on rules questions, with or without citations.
I understand the citations are important, but they are often unnecessary and, to newer players, actually more confusing than just a straight answer.
Still, community members don't really "know" me, so their skepticism is not without merit, which is why I propose some sort of rules questionnaire. Maybe you could post percentages publicly or something, just so newer members know who they can generally trust when it comes to rulings.
Anyway, just a thought, and thanks for listening!
Feel free to make it happen.
What about taking advantage of DCI rules advisor exam? Can't you check through our DCI number if we were approved?
Who, me?
Quote from: Piotr on June 21, 2013, 05:17:18 PM
Who, me?
I think he was wondering if people could check in general.
And since you've posted about Rules, you certainly have my attention.
The thing I like about the Rules citation is that they're really unassailable. I could say I'm a DCI certified Level 3 judge, and people would still argue with me, since people make mistakes. When you throw out a rule, there's really no arguing with it. And with a decent explanation before or after the Rules citation (explaining what exactly it means), there shouldn't be too much confusion. Also, linking specific rules helps other people with similar questions, and helps keeps the same questions from being asked a hundred times. They even help keep posts shorter, due to elimination of "why?" or "No, I think it works out this way" kind of remarks. What will we do if two people of the same rank have opposite answers? Heck, I don't even have a DCI number, but I'd like to think people can trust my word around here.
This is not to undermine the idea though; I think it's a cool idea. I just don't want people to start giving "yes/no" answers because they passed the advisor test, and think they don't need proof. Just trying to throw some of my concerns about this out there, to better your cause. Keep us updated on what you come up with! I'm always down for improvement to the Rules section!
All I can say is that an answer that includes an explanation that holds up to logic, game mechanics, or rules citations, it's good enough for me 9 times out of 10. No matter who posts it.
If, for example, someone asks "if I put {Gift of Orzhova} on my {Tithe Drinker}, does it have double lifelink?" and a random person who's never posted before replies with "No, lifelink doesn't stack. It's short for 'when this creature deals damage, you gain that much life,' which would be redundant if a creature had it multiple times." You won't see me (or hopefully anyone else) post in this thread, Ser RandomGuy has given a correct ruling, and explained why. It makes sense, can be backex by the rules...There's no reason to question him. A mod will likely tack a "resolved" on it as confirmation, to avoid unnecessary pop-up arguments or debating over a question already solved.
That's how I see, anyway. Of course, we all make mistakes, so people should point them out if they see incorrect calls...just be sure you have the rulings and whatnot to back you before you take a whack at the beehive of people's egos ;)