New FAQ: What's different/added?

[Nail]

No poll. No poll.

No more polls now,
I mean it.....

 

[Felix]

From yours.

I could describe how the constant protests make someone seem to me, but I'm guessing there would be no point. Maybe we could have a poll?

I imagine that would be quite out of the question: ad hominem posts are not welcome here. But you are welcome to look up my email address and we can continue this conversation outside.

 

[mvincent]

ad hominem posts are not welcome here.

I believe I have been far more polite than you have been towards the Sage, with comments like:
"I'll add my name to the list of folks who bite their thumbs at the FAQ. The purpose of the thing is to clarify the rules, while eratta's purpose is to change them. The FAQ has a bad history of inaccurate rulings, internal contradiction and core-rule revisioning."

"One shouldn't have to construct explanations for the Sage when he is purportedly providing a clarification of the rules, especially when the ruling he makes is groundless as well as arbitrary."

While you are entitled to your perceptions of the Sage's credibility, if I made similar comments about my perception of your credibility, I believe you would be (justly) upset, even if I could back it up with logical premises.

Meanwhile, you appear to berate people for following the FAQ as a rules resource. That does not seem like acceptable behavior.

 

[Felix]

mvincent,

If you care to continue to comment upon the tone and manner of my posts instead of the content, please notify the moderators or email me. Or drop it.

 

[Plane Sailing]

moderator note:
mvincent, if you wish to continue that line of conversation, you may take up Felix' kind offer to converse via email.

However, you'll drop the issue in this thread now, thanks.

 

[Legildur]

While you are entitled to your perceptions of the Sage's credibility, if I made similar comments about my perception of your credibility, I believe you would be (justly) upset, even if I could back it up with logical premises.

Meanwhile, you appear to berate people for following the FAQ as a rules resource. That does not seem like acceptable behavior.

The FAQ can be a useful document, but it hardly rates as a reliable rules source because of the number of straight out contradictions to the core rules. Similarly with the Sage. If he is purporting to be the font of all knowledge on rules questions, then perhaps some more care should be taken in formulating the answers, otherwise some of his responses undermine his own credibility.