Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 334716" data-attributes="member: 2525">Where exactly did you get this idea from? The purpose of the FAQ is to answer questions about the rules.  There is nothing in the stated purpose of a FAQ that limits its jurisdiction to interpretive answers.  Having looked "FAQ" up in every online dictionary I could find, none of them limited the content of a "FAQ" to interpretive answers.  All of them simply said "answers".  And the definition of "answer" included " a solution of a problem".  So yes, a list of answers to frequent questions can include a solution to a problem, and that solution need not be interpretive in nature.  It can just as easily include "additional factors".Again, where are you getting this? Where does it say that an answer cannot add to the rules? Why can't you refer to a FAQ when the rules don't seem to be working well (not that you don't understand them) and you are seeking an answer to a problem with the rules? And where are you getting the "that is not what a FAQ is supposed to be for"? Who said? Dictionaries don't seem to agree with your view on the purpose of a FAQ.I partially agree, and partially disagree. My view is that sage answers published in Dragon magazine are official, and those not published there are unofficial.  Those that go into Dragon magazine pass through an editorial process, are preserved for all time in print, and kept by WOTC (probably for later reprinting, as they did with the CD Rom of Dragon Magazines).Again, you repeat the same contention, and again you do not back up that contention with anything more than your opinion.  And that opinion is contrary to the dictionary definition of a FAQ and "answers", and with the view of WOTC concerning their FAQ (since they obvious feel it is a proper venue for rules changes).  Right now, it appears that WOTC is using the FAQ to answer all problems with the rules, either with clarifications or additions, subtractions, changes, and other modifications to the rules.  Eventually they will hopefully get around to adding rules changes to errata. But since they have not been able to keep up with publishing errata (there is still no official errata document for many of the splat books), they are using the FAQ for now.  And that is perfectly legitimate.  It is easier for WOTC to change and republish one document (the FAQ) when there is a rules change or rules interpretation, than it is to change two documents (the errata for rules changes, and the FAQ for rules interpretations).  It saves them time, and their web publisher time.  Hopefully eventually they will organize it better (and the ease of finding data would be the only benefit of splitting rules changes from interpretations).I'd just like to say that, in my opinion, the context of the quote was proper, since the point was your snarkiness, not the debate over the FAQ's venue.  I also think, Pax, that you have gone from defensive to outright ornery.  But that's fine, I get that way sometimes too, particularly when I feel like the entire board is ganging up on me.People are thinking for themselves. They just disagree with you.  They think, as do I, that the FAQ is one proper venue for rules changes.  They think, as do I, that the Sage rulings can be useful (not the word of God, just useful).Again you restate your position, though it is not based on anything other than your opinion, contrary to the dictionary definition of "FAQ, and "answers" and WOTC view of the purpose of their FAQ.  FAQs can be an additive, corrective document.  FAQs can and do add new rules.  FAQs are one proper venue for such things.</blockquote>

Verification