Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MarkB" data-source="post: 3082092" data-attributes="member: 40176">The fact is, the FAQ seems to use either approach lately, on an ad hoc basis. Some FAQ answers include advice suggesting more reasonable rulings that go against the rules as written, while others simply clarify exactly what is meant.The danger here is that, since some of the answers include suggestions of workarounds and re-interpretations, whilst others don't, even in cases where the rules might appear to be inconsistent or poorly worded, some people may tend to take the latter form of answer as an endorsement of those rules.I tend to think that's generally not the case - that generally speaking, the FAQ just tells you what the rules as written actually mean, and that corrections to what they should mean are generally left for the errata. However, the exceptions to that rule do seem to be becoming more numerous of late, which does lead to the interpretation that rules changes are being implemented via the FAQ.I would like to see a little more consistency in the way FAQ answers are composed in future. At the moment they seem to be a schizophrenic mixture of definitive rulings and 'agony aunt' replies.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MarkB, post: 3082092, member: 40176"] The fact is, the FAQ seems to use either approach lately, on an ad hoc basis. Some FAQ answers include advice suggesting more reasonable rulings that go against the rules as written, while others simply clarify exactly what is meant. The danger here is that, since some of the answers include suggestions of workarounds and re-interpretations, whilst others don't, even in cases where the rules might appear to be inconsistent or poorly worded, some people may tend to take the latter form of answer as an endorsement of those rules. I tend to think that's generally not the case - that generally speaking, the FAQ just tells you what the rules as written actually mean, and that corrections to what they [i]should[/i] mean are generally left for the errata. However, the exceptions to that rule do seem to be becoming more numerous of late, which does lead to the interpretation that rules changes are being implemented via the FAQ. I would like to see a little more consistency in the way FAQ answers are composed in future. At the moment they seem to be a schizophrenic mixture of definitive rulings and 'agony aunt' replies. [/QUOTE]

Verification