The blog thing isn't working the way I'd like it to. I kind of thought/hoped I could "close" blogs from comment at a certain point. Even now, after I've gone back and forth with WK on the bulk of the questions, a few more trickled in. I know that's the nature of the beast, but back on the old forums, I could lock one thread and then open a new one, so they didn't blur together.

But I want people to have a resource to be able to get the answers they need and to be able to know that it's "official". There are a couple of irons in the fire and once a decision is made, answers will flow. In fact, I'll say this - if I haven't gotten an official mechanism in place by tomorrow afternoon, I will post a complete Q&A of what I've got.

Where I go from there, I'm not really sure. I may delete the current blog entries (if I can), add the outstanding questions to a new blog entry and re-strategize. But I really hope that I have an official method in place by then.

I have a few questions, but I'll wait and see what you get in place first. After all, I wouldn't want the same questions asked...two times!

'Course, I could always call you, but where's the fun in that?

I don't want people to feel like they need to wait to ask a question. And I think these forums are a great source of answers. It happens I have a fair amount of time to be online this week, but there's 2 weeks in January for certain that I'll be online in the evening (at best). But there are a bunch of good folks out there who answer questions and have a better batting average than me on many issues.

But like I used to have a "call for questions" thread on the WK forums that I could close when I had sent that batch off to WK, I want something similar, where there is a clear mechanism in place for people to know their questions are "in the queue".

But there are always questions in the queue, so it shouldn't stop anyone from asking.

It was more directed at the fact that there are questions that are in the queue and people are wanting the answers now instead of waiting for the official answer how ever you choose to present that to us.
Instead of starting a new thread HEY RA WHAT IS THE RULE FOR THIS that there are 5 other threads going around with the same thing.

IMO it would seems quicker to allow you to figure out how you want to get these answers to us rather than asking you over again a ruling on a question that you are trying to get to us.

This is going to be a great referance to use during tourneys. I'm looking forward to seeing all the links expand as questions get answered.

How about this?

Ask a Mod here if you can have a "Sticky" thread in the rules section. Post the same buckets that you had in your blog as new threads and link them in your stickied post. Then, people can ask them there, you can bookmark and lock them, Create and link to new ones as needed.

I don't think the mods here would have much of a problem with giving you one sticky thread (for a good and official cause?)

That's kinda the reason I changed the title of this thread. 'Lots of rules work to do' apparently didn't catch enough people's attention.
Nope, I'd be happy to help in any way you feel is necessary.

I like the idea of a sticky thread we can go to for Q&A rather than a blog. Looking forward to seeing some answers soon.

There are just too many question right now for one person. Granted there are many people capable of answering those questions correctly only one of them can give official word on it. So when things are subject to debate like the trait thing had been people don't want to take the word of just anyone. Someone with an official capacity needs to give the answer.

Normalview, Harpua and others seem very knowledgeable. Maybe you should be able to deputize them or something so people won't fight them so much when they most likely will be right.

If we weren't going to phase out the member groups it would be fun to start an 'Insufferable know-it-alls' group with all the rules experts in it.
With a badge of their own of course so everyone knows the comment comes from a certified know-it-all.

The trouble is that people and i include myself seem to think the rules work like the U.S. legal system "subject to interpretation". Which is not the case. If it were it would be nice to have a rules supreme court. Sometimes I think this still is a good idea but thats forgetting they aren't subject to interpretation.

While you're not incorrect that technically, I'm the only guy "deputized" to make official rulings, I think people should have the sense to realize that if Harpua, normalview, and Quebbster all agree on something, odds are darn good that they're opinions are likely all together based on a common understanding of "how things work". Each of them, more than once, have recognized when things come down to a line where they aren't really sure one way or another - and I'm the same way. I just have WK to go to when that happens and y'all have me. But that shouldn't mean that anything they ever say can't be considered "right", "rational" or even "official". The things they have to say should have weight whether there is a WK official recognition or not.

Awesome! Thanks NBPerp! On the weekend, I'll see what others have posted, and post any questions I may have that haven't been covered yet.

You always did rock pretty hard, Norm. Keep up the nice work, eh?

In advance, thanks for all the hard work Norm!

Now, is there anything we, as a group, can do to help make things easier? I know you've done a good job of creating various links where we can go with specific questions/comments, but what would help you that we can (mostly) implement?