What do you consider generally unquestionable sources of rules interpretation?

[Ogrork the Mighty]

And what reason is that? How can you provide an answer based on someone elses reason if you don't even know what the reason is?

Because I feel like it.

 

[IcyCool]

For the same reason that you use the word fathom instead of understand.

I assume you mean because it's shorter, not because it sounds smart?

 

[Babylon Knight]

sounds more intelligent*

I just mix them up, i'm as liable to use fathom, as understand. Help, as assist. Sleep, as hibernate

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

Very well, different example then. My company states that the data supplied by a particular program we created is valid, and that only supplemental modules or patches that we create will give valid data. All other sources are not to be considered valid data from this program. Now I, as a programmer who worked on said program, say that datafield 4 says "A" but means "B". However, no patches will be created.

Now, obviously you'll give my words more weight than the average Joe, but according to my own company's posted rule, unless it comes from the program, a supplemental module, or a patch, it isn't valid data from the program. So, does "A" mean "A", or does "A" mean "B"?

The key is degree of validity. Let's try to keep this to WotC. The opinion of a WotC employee is made more valid if it is posted on the WotC website than it is if it were, say, posted on EN World. The Rules of the Game, for example. But since that opinion isn't in one of the "official" forums (say, Errata), then it isn't "written in stone" so to speak (probably b/c the Errata would be HUGE! if it included every little clarification). But the fact that WotC allows the statement to remain is a tacit indication of it's acceptance as correct. Otherwise, it wouldn't be allowed to remain on the website.

Posting on EN World, while extremely useful, is not as valid (IMO) as what WotC employees post on the WotC website. There is no official D&D overseers for EN World; it's a private forum. So anything someone says on EN World, whether they are a WotC employee or not, doesn't have the official "seal of approval" of WotC (unless WotC has said it does).

Go back and read the last part of my original post. It's not about whether you think it's "correct" or not. It's what WotC has chosen to go with, for better or for worse. You may disagree, that's fine. But the ultimate arbitrator is WotC and I'd recognize that as "official" before I ever recognize something from another source. Again, that doesn't make it "right". I'm just talking about who/what has the higher authority. And if it comes down to a battle of opinions, that's what matters.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

sounds more intelligent*

I just mix them up, i'm as liable to use fathom, as understand. Help, as assist. Sleep, as hibernate

The grammar trolls are on the loose.

 

[Babylon Knight]

Correcting someone half-heartedly or with humorous intent is different from castrating or crucifying them for making a minor grammatical error

 

[IcyCool]

But the fact that WotC allows the statement to remain is a tacit indication of it's acceptance as correct. Otherwise, it wouldn't be allowed to remain on the website.

So in the case of the FAQ giving two contradicting answers to the same rules problem, WotC is tacitly indicating that both are correct?

 

[IcyCool]

The grammar trolls are on the loose.

On the contrary, "smart" and "more intelligent" don't necessarily mean the same thing. Admittedly, I meant "more intelligent".

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

So in the case of the FAQ giving two contradicting answers to the same rules problem, WotC is tacitly indicating that both are correct?

I'll assume that the two contradicting answers are, in fact, that and not just yours or other peoples' opinions (which may be a big assumption).

But if this were the case, then it would indicate to me that WotC tacitly accepts that there may be different interpretations of a particular ruling and doesn't want to make an "official" statement as to which is correct. Both rulings would still be more "official" than something posted here though (IMO).

 

[Babylon Knight]

On the contrary, "smart" and "more intelligent" don't necessarily mean the same thing. Admittedly, I meant "more intelligent".

I'm a MIND READER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Don't question my 20 levels in Telepath!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!