I wanted to ask if Maraud had ever or could be considered for a rules deputy position. He seems to know the rules as well as any of the current deputies. He usually answers very quickly and seems like he would be a great asset to you guys. Ofcourse I'm sure he would have to be willing anyhow. Just wanted to make the suggestion.

If not or Maraud is/wasn't willing my compliments to him on his rules knowledge anyhow.

You know...I never got my red background color.

You probably need to donate more.

Question... (i don't think it has been asked before, but if i did, please forgive me)

Is there some kind of hierarchy between the different rule arbs ?
I mean... if Harpua and Vlad says something different, does Harpua's word takes preceedence ? Or the contrary ? Or do they just debate until everyone agree ?

It's important because lately, i'm under the feeling there is alot of threads where they tend to disagree, ...

Not really. The rules arb (TechG0D) is the first among equals. If we disagree, we try to work it out in the cave. If it's a friendly disagreement, we just use blunt weapons.

Ahh ok thanks !

And we disagree all the time. If we all were just Yes Men for each other, that wouldn't really accomplish very much. Now maybe you all don't see every instance of the disagreement (a lot of it happens in the cave), but we're not just automatically rubberstamping each other's comments.

This is an old thread, but relevant, perhaps, to what I've been thinking. And looking at Nbperb's original definition of what the goal of the Oranges was, I think I'm not that far off base. So here's a bit of an essay.

Which is that, not to besmirch what the Oranges do, nor to speak ill of GD, but I think the whole culture of rules and questions and rules questions we currently have is flawed, and perhaps is in some part due to the development of the Orange position.

As implied above by both Quebbster and Normalview, [and correct me if I'm wrong] it seems the Oranges and the RA are in a position to hash out how things work. They retire to the cave, they talk it through, they come to conclusions. Which, sure, is fine and good, but honestly, is not at all how things should work. As implied in the initial post, the Oranges are guys that are designated as dudes who know the rules, which they do, but they should not and can not be guys that make the rules, which I sort of feel they've become. At no point should they be debating how they think things work. They either know how it works, or they don't. If they hit a point where one of them thinks one thing and another thinks another, that thing should be tagged and highlighted and given to GD immediately. The Oranges should be two things: A] people to answer the obvious questions we dummies have, and B] the conduits through which our legitimate questions and funnelled to the people who should actually know the answer. They take these legitimate grey areas, present possible interpretations, and have whoever actually designed the thing check off the right one. Which, sure, is part of what they currently do. But that should be the entirety of what they do. And GD needs to be more capable and willing to allow them to do this.

The point is that I feel the Oranges make GD lazy. Oranges work hard. They work too hard. They've been given the job of answering questions they can not accurately answer, so we end up with situations where they solve problems based on the rules they have, but the questions are about game elements that are arguably not themselves based on those same rules. So you get things hinged on interpretation and wording that was itself perhaps used in error, or made with variables that are essentially unknowable.

I get why the RA is a thing, because Game Design is, I guess, too busy designing the new stuff to bother looking back on the stuff they just designed in a timely manner. So they designate a guy to do that. But it's a volunteer position, and he is quickly overwhelmed, and the Oranges come in. And things get watered down and what was supposed to ease the process instead slows it to a crawl. The RA position should be a staff position. There should be a guy there who's job, his actual duty is to make sure the rules work, as well as possible before they go live and as quickly as possible after they do. There's no reason Ziran, for example, should have taken as long as it did to be resolved. There's no reason I still don't know how Orc Stacks and Swarming really work.

The system needs to be improved. Or so it seems to me.

We don't make the rules. If the answer is obvious (it is like X previous case, so it should be ruled the same), then we simply make a ruling.

But anytime there is any REAL question, it gets kicked up to design. We do have the authority to say "Here's how I think it should work in the meantime" but that's as far as it goes. The thorny questions still get passed up the line.

In other words, it works exactly the way you seem to think it should work.

What exactly is still unclear?

Perhaps our definitions of "REAL question" is different, then. You guys need to be more willing to put your hands up and say "I dunno," and somehow force things that are passed up the line to be processed quicker.

Also, I think basing things on precedents is a terrible precedent.

Why? Especially when wordings are identical or at least very similar?

What?

Basing things on precedent is the best possible precedent.

ok i got to say this i been around since the begining with bromags and all

i think some time people see it bad when it ruled by a similar power then a month or so later it changed and then the only reason giving is game designed said so

and not to step on toes but all the players i know in alabama
dont like you normelview becuase they seem to think u are unfriendly and have a i am God ego

I'm not sure what just happened, but what I got out of it is that normalview should avoid Alabama.

And that does happen. Very rarely, but it does. And when it does, typically the wording is also errata'd to meet the intent. Because otherwise, same/similar wording is same/similar wording and should be treated as such. If there is no consistency in wording, then NO rule could ever really be interpreted.

I didn't do this for the popularity. If people dislike me, that is their right. If they actually have a real beef with me, then it would be super awesome if, you know, they actually said something to me and we tried to work it out. Seeing as how I've openly admitted, many many times, to the errors I've made and such, I don't really see how they come to the ego conclusion, but hey, whatever works for them.