A few responses:
*****
The people doing the document review in most large legal cases tend to be temps with a legal background - usually law students that just graduated and are awaiting bar results before finding a permanent position. They do not make obscene amounts of money. More than $18,000 per year or $9.00 per hour? Yes. More than $50,000 per year or $25.00 per hour? Usually not.
Those JDs (law graduates) know a heck of a lot about the law, but they are not trained in handling massive rule applications. That is something you learn on the job. There is a huge difference between being able to handle the laws as a lawyer and applying the rules of evidence in a specific setting in regards to a large document production.
These law graduates generally are bright people, but they rarely have any expertise in this aspect of rule management. This is not an area of emphasis in many, if any, law schools. In other words, beyond being slightly brighter than your average joe, these guys are probably not more qualified *in this area of expertise* than a quality junior college student. If that JC student has specialized training in this type of activity, they may be more proficient.
*****
As for the hiring practices of Wotc: If the people answering questions have only minimal game playing experience and have only read through the books a few times before they sit down to answer questions, WotC needs to fire the person responsible for hiring these people. There are better candidates out there.
Even if the people hired are that poorly selected, they should develope an expertise in the field rather quickly *if* there is some organization. Simply using key word sifting to send particular topics to particular people would reduce the number of times that different agents give different answers on the same topic.
*****
Rule 0 is fine tool, but it can only be used like a knife, not a club.
I've played in many games over nearly 3 decades with *hundreds* of players. MOST of them tend to be unhappy when a DM applies Rule 0 and makes a change that doesn't favor their character. A select (blessed) few will take any rule changes in stride, but most players will point to a book and scream bloody murder if you make a ruling against the holy books.
When players get advice from custserv, the sage or a select few board savants, they give that advice the same treatment as the books. They feel that it is gospel. If that ruling favors their characters, either in 'power' or in terms of character concept, they resent it being overruled.
A DM can always apply Rule 0 to fix a problem. Unfortunately, applying Rule 0 is often a solution that leads to anger, frustration and resentment. This is not always the case, but for issues that arise often, it is the norm in most groups.
In any game as complex as D&D it is an unfortunate necessity. It should, however, be a last resort, not a common technique. We buy the rules to have rules. We don't buy the rules to make them up ourselves.
*****
I appreciate the problems that custserv faces. It is not funded well. It probably has pretty quick turnover with most custserv agents leaving after a short period. During their time answering questions, those agents have to deal with irate and rude customers. Like any customer service situation, it is not a fun job most of the time.
There are many customer service jobs out there. Many of them face the same problems. Many of them do a far better job because of proper organization.
*****
As for managing a database capable of handling the written core rules, the questions that custserv answers, the modules, etc ... I fully admit this is not an area of expertise for me. I have, however, seen very small companies handle much larger databases on issues that are more complex. Do I know how? No. Does it tell me that it can be done? Yes.
*****
I'm not looking for perfection. I don't care about the trivia of the game. I only care about the big issues. The ones that come up over ... and over ... and over ... and over ... The issues that many of us get tired of seeing pop up on the message boards. With minimal organization, these major issues could be grabbed by custserv agents, discussed fully amongst themselves (and designers when needed) and given a final answer that has the full weight and authority of WotC behind it. That answer could be saved and reused every time that question came up.
A key example: Polymorph. How many polymorph questions pop up on the boards? Do hit points change with a change in constitution? What natural attacks can a polymorpher make in a certain form? Do polymorphers gain the traits of the type adopted? How do you mix natural and manufactured weapons? Are druids limited by the 15 HD cap on polymorph effects? What magic items blend in when you polymorph into certain forms? Does enlarge person end if you polymorph into another type of creature? Can a polymorphed creature poison another creature, or does the poison revert to something other than poison once it leaves the polymorpher? (Note: please don't argue these issues here ... there are other threads that cover all of these issues ... and none of these issues have universally accepted answers).
Some of those questions are major issues that come up almost every time polymorph effects go into play. Polymoprh effects represent a very popular spell for wizards and sorcerers as well as a core ability of the druid class. They come up a lot. They need consistent answers.
Some of those issues only arise on a rare occassion. Do I expect answers for them? No. It would be nice to have clear answers for them, but the issue of whether a polymorphed creature can poison something else is so rare that a central answer is not truly needed.
I expect the major issues to be answered. I don't expect perfection. I just expect the major issues to be covered.
*****
I'm glad I type fast ...
