I asked a question on AEG forum rules question about Baird’s building and loan. I am not at all satisfied with the answer, as it was a single one word, no. Why, usually we get a bit of narrative explaining the answer, but I just got ‘no’. I wish that I could have posted a reply, but the reply function is disabled. Not wanting the question to become spammed, or pressed, I didn’t want to press the matter further with a new post. Should I personal message the respondent?
I really hope post isn’t taken the wrong way by certain parties. I am less asking about my specific question, than I am about how to appropriately engage the rules team about unsatisfactory answers.
Unfortunately, that’s just how Bithlord works, at least from how I’ve seen with his postings on that forum. Very blunt (and no, I don’t mean that as a negative)
It is odd they lock down the topics the moment a question is answered though, unless something else is going on.
Anyway, for clarification, since one wasn’t provided: The general store circumvents the normal 'shoppin rules because it’s telling you to specifically attach an item, there are no conditions, you’re simply paying the reduced cost and attaching the goods/spell. In the case of building and loan, it says to play the deed, which means you have to follow the standard rules for playing a deed, in order for you to circumvent placement rules it has to specify it does.
Basically, the semantics boils down to ‘play’ and ‘attach’. If the general goods said ‘play’, it would have to follow the standard rules for playing a shopping action buying a goods card, since it instead says ‘attach’ specifically, it circumvents the standard rules for playing a goods card. Which might actually come down to word templating and intent, but for now that’s the difference.
As for what you can do, a follow up via PM wouldn’t be an awful idea, though the response likely depends on the rules team person in question, they -should- be all fairly approachable especially for something simple like this.
And if I’m wrong, someone brighter can hopefully chime in, but that’s my take.
it still merits a little more than a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer though, you want people to understand the answer, not just that there is an answer. Especially in cases like this where the wording is so similar but the outcomes are very different.
thank you tredain, that really does help. The major reason for not wanting a simple yes/no is it can, especially with a no response, can feel like ‘no, now go away.’
Also, for future card interactions, an explanation of a ruling that is seemingly in contradiction with another ruling (at least in my view) will only create further questions and establish no precedent.
I am in disagreement with this ruling, but I don’t want to start a fight over it.
Well I believe the protocol is that if you have something further to add, then you can make a new post with the subject “Follow up to Baird’s Build and Loan” and then explain why you think it should work differently.
This has been done many times with other questions, and lately the moderators have been joining the two threads together making the thread longer.
I think the response was “No” because it seemed like your question was asking for a quick confirmation/denial, and shouldn’t be taken personally.
If you have a good reason or a rules precedent that you think contradicts this, then you can bring it up in the follow up thread (respectfully), and then usually the rules team does a great job of providing an explanation of how the rules work in that instance.
Yeah, there’s nothing stopping you from asking a follow-up.
The Rules Forum is set up specifically for official answers. So they shut down replies so that it doesn’t devolve into a bunch of other people coming in with their own thoughts on why the ruling is or is not correct.
It might be frustrating sometimes, but it’s how they keep control over the process and make sure that channel is open and available for people to get clear and concise answers.
I did elaborate on Bithlord’s succinct reply, quoting from the rulebook. Reposted below:
Rules said:
[quote]Deeds are buildings and properties that provide special abilities or game effects, and, once
brought into play, cannot be moved. When you bring a deed into play, it goes on the street
on your side of town.[/quote]
[quote]Deed : Unless they say otherwise, all deeds are in town. Place a new in-town deed at either
end of your street , as the last card in that direction. New deeds can’t be placed between existing locations in your street. Out-of-town deeds are never added to your street, but
instead are placed off to one side.[/quote]
So BB&L can reduce costs, but play a deed as Shoppin’ follows the above rules.
Although on the above AEG Forums page, it is specifically stated:
“Please don’t ask clarifications by private message as we need to answer everything publicly in order for it to be archived and actually official, specifically we will never answer rules questions privately.”
We don’t lock down the threads, it’s just that the way permissions were set up for that forum you cannot reply to threads unless you are part of the admin, mod, or rules team. I’m not sure why, I think I was told by somebody that’s how they have all of their rules forums set up and it might be to stop people not on the rules team responding to and answering questions.
I can’t speak for Bithlord here but honestly, no offence but your question comes off kinda trolly to me. I’m pretty sure you knew the answer to the question before you asked it and were more looking to debate/discuss a perceived inconsistency in the rules. Bithlord answered your question in case it was something you were legitimately unsure about so hopefully that resolves any confusion you have regarding Baird’s.
If you do have any other questions about Baird’s (or any other card) then please feel free to post them on the forum.
I am, personally, hugely dissatisfied with how AEG runs the rules forum for DTR. I much prefer how the rules forum was handled on the TOL for Warlord. You would ask a question and experienced players would help answer basic and straightforward questions.
The rules team only ever stepped in when incorrect information was being viewed as the correct ruling (i.e. many knowledgeable players were replying incorrectly) or when there was just general disagreement and no obvious consensus could be reached. Also, the rules team would very often participate in that discussion (and take it behind closed doors as well in tandem with the public discussion) as well.
The rules team would lock the thread only after they issued a final ruling or after a community member offered the correct ruling (which the rules team would reference when locking the thread). Heck, they’d usually leave it over after the final ruling so that they could answer follow-up questions for awhile and would only lock it when the discussion died down or just if people were expressing disgruntlement with the ruling and not just asking clarifying questions.
I felt that strategy:
a.) Alleviated burden from the rules team. The community could answer a lot of the simpler or already answered questions.
b.) Helped the community feel like their concerns were better heard before a ruling was given. There’d be discussion and different sides could lay out their views before a ruling was handed down.
c.) Gave the rules team more information before issuing a ruling. I tremendously dislike how often a rules team member issues a ruling only to reverse themselves in a follow-up in a totally separate post. I can’t imagine how hard that would be for new or casual players to parse through.
It’s how they do it, I don’t get any input in the matter =)
I try to merge follow up questions into the original thread so the discussion is easier to follow and if I need to issue a reversal I try to include that information on the original thread but I’m sure that I’ve missed that from time to time.
While having members of the community answering questions might alleviate some burden it may not be as much as you think. First of all with the current system it’s easy for me to see new questions and issues that haven’t been answered yet. Second of all with this system I can just read the OP and answer it, if anyone could reply with answers I still need to read the OP and have an answer, but I’d also need to read through all the responses to make sure they were correct. If I miss an error in one of the responses that could be taken as implicit approval of the answer.
Having said that, whatever way AEG decides to run the forums I will adapt to.
Yeah, there are certainly pro’s and con’s of either approach. I simply prefer a different solution than what is currently being employed. Not meant to be a knock on the team or how they handle that system, just on the system itself.
What you are describing exists on the AEG forums, and is called a Doomtown Newbie Help Center. It’s a forum for simple rules questions where experienced players answer them, and sometimes members of the Rules Team step in.
I don’t think any of us experienced players are qualified enough to answer questions on the Doomtown Rules Questions forum though. Rulings get reversed not because a member of the Rules Team was under pressure and didn’t think it through (although this too happens), but more likely because at the point when a question was asked, there was no consensus on this subject among all the members of the Rules Team (and the person who answered the question didn’t realize that his other colleagues might have a different opinion on the matter).
I would suggest allowing the original poster to comment in the same thread, in case they want to ask for clarifications or have any follow-up question.
I would also suggest that if the Rules Team doesn’t have a ready answer for a particular question, they should say so (“We’ll get back to you on that one”) rather than ignoring the question for several days while thinking on the answer. Same applies to repeated requests that are technically not questions (“Please add a clear rule about dudes using abilities on goods/spells into the rulebook”).
So, the problem with the “Doomtown Newbie Help Center” is that it doesn’t get used much because of the existence of the “Doomtown Rules Questions” forum.
Also in our defence, I know we had some recent reversals and as a team obviously we’re disappointed in that but (from my perspective at least) we don’t have that many reversal’s issued.
Regarding response times - we’re 3 volunteers not in the same timezone with our own lives and schedules so sometimes it can take a bit to get to your question, especially if we feel the need to interface with others on the team (or Design) before answering. We strive not to have reversals and sometimes your question can have relevance to as yet unreleased cards. I’d rather delay an answer by a week while I perform due diligence and check with my fellow RT members than issue a ruling that might need to be reversed.
As for things that are not questions, that is not the purpose of the forum. You are certainly free to provide feedback or opinions on the rules in your posts but I’m sorry, we’re not going to get into a discussion about whether or not we’re going to add/change the rules/cards in a certain way or not.
I disagree. The team clearly isn’t infallible. Experienced players challenge their rulings and see reversals with semi-regularity. There are many questions I see posed on that forum that I could easily answer and the vast majority of the time what I would have answered aligns with what the Rules Team ends up ruling later. The opposite is the exception, which is exactly the scenario I was describing.
If anything having rules questions being answered in multiple sub-forums is an even worse strategy, in my opinion. Now players need to check in the FAQ, rules forum, and a newbie help center?