Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Felix" data-source="post: 3221091" data-attributes="member: 3929">I disagree. I argue for the RAW's ascendancy over the FAQ because I believe that before you go changing the rules, it's important to know what the rules are: you need to know exactly what you're changing to have a good idea of what kind of effects the change is going to create.I'm all for changing and breaking the rules. I just like it to be done with the knowledge of what you're changing them from.Except that because the opposing viewpoint can produce enough RAW evidence to keep a debate going for 20 pages means that it is grounded, which the FAQ doesn't have to be.If the FAQ agrees with the RAW, it is redundant. If the FAQ disagrees with the RAW, it is in error. If the FAQ submits a ruling for something the RAW does not cover at all, then it provides an official opinion and a standard.The trouble is, it is not always clear that the RAW does or does not provide rulings for a particular subject. You might say that the RAW is silent on Monks and INA because it does not clearly say "no", and therefore the FAQ is useful in this situation. But others might cite precident in the RAW and argue that that precident is the RAW's ruling, and therefore the FAQ is not ruling on something the RAW ignores, but rather the FAQ contradicts the RAW, in which case it is in error.</blockquote>