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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Infiniti2000" data-source="post: 3225361" data-attributes="member: 31734">Let me start by saying that I do not personally use the FAQ except as one more data point.  I lend as much, if not more weight, to any poster on this forum as I do to a FAQ answer.  In other words, if I were to start a thread with each of the FAQ questions, and everyone on this forum were allowed only one response, the actual FAQ response would be no more important to me than any one of the other responses and, in some case, less so (since I attribute more weight to certain people's responses based on my personal perceptions).That said, whenever the FAQ is mentioned I note if it is quoted as actual rules, guidelines, or a mere link.  Sometimes, I even quote the FAQ not because I believe wholly in its veracity, but I recognize that others tend to give it more weight (especially for certain things like LG).  If I disagree with it, I say so, and why.  If I agree with it, I say so and then back up my answer with a rules quote/reference (what the FAQ should have done in the first place and usually doesn't.)But, I definitely remember many times (not once, not twice, but at least over a dozen times) when people have said things like, "The FAQ answers this.  QED." or "C'mon, ppl, the FAQ said monks can take ... so just deal with it."  I can't believe you don't remember this last one from that thread (paraphrased).  It occurred more than once in that thread.  In fact, the sticky note at the top of this forum references someone banned during that debacle, and I think it was (at least partially) because of the additional arguments on the FAQ.So, I don't dismiss the FAQ.  I merely dismiss it as RAW.  The FAQ would be MUCH more acceptable IMO if they formatted it like most people do here in this forum.  You know, "You cast that spell because of the rule XYZ on page N."  More importantly, if a FAQ answer ever says, "There's no clear rule ..." then IMO that had better be followed up with, "...but we'll amend the errata to add a clear rule."  For crying out loud, if they care to spend all that time on the FAQ and note that the rules aren't clear, have the common courtesy to make them clear!I hope this explains my (and I presume not just a few others') opinion on the FAQ.</blockquote>

Verification