I don't believe this is correct. The only title I saw was "unofficial worldwide Warcor FAQ". All the words used in the title were factual, since it was a worldwide group of Warcors providing an unofficial F(equently) A(sked) Q(uestions) document. I don't know how it could be made any clearer that the use of "unofficial" in the title.
The original title and presentation was edited to that name after concerns about the naming and presentation were brought up.
By implication, however, they were speaking for all WarCors. When pressed on that issue, they didn't say "we didn't intend to speak for all WarCors," but instead said "We posted this on the WarCor forum, they could have commented on it, if they didn't we take their silence as consent for us to speak for them."
Including “warcor” in the name was a poor choice because it upsets two groups: 1. Warcors who did not participate, who then feel like their reputation is being traded on 2. Non-warcors who already feel like the warcors act like a secret cabal; to them, this was just more confirmation
Oh geez, that's a stretch. No offense, but unless it's some big declaration with everybody signing, and has the statement "we the undersigned" I never take it as meaning people speaking for a whole group. I think just looking at the last five minutes of this thread is enough to show everybody's a got a different take on things. Interesting to hear they changed the name, must have happened very quickly. @toadchild Perhaps. I've got another theory: some people were going to be upset no matter what was said or done. Having posted questions about things I felt were abusive rule situations (let alone suggesting a fix), it's pretty clear that such discussions quickly become toxic.
It's not, because when asked to clarify that, they said they were, because the other WarCors had the opportunity for input.
Then it's not by implication. Also I don't think most people agree that silence is acceptance. I also remember the thread a bit differently.
The implication wass in the assumption that other warcors not saying anything was acceptance. Not implication in the way they stated it to the community as a whole.
By the title alone, it *was* by implication. But they didn't even say "we think you're reading too much into this." It was "yes, we do claim that authority." Exactly, but that was what the guys who made that document claimed gave them the authority to speak for all WarCors. You seem dead set on defending these guys. A pity the evidence isn't anywhere I can access it.
Faults on both sides, however the big issue was one side had "WarCor" under their usernames, which meant they were explicitly representing CB, and unfortunately appeared to simply dig in their heels when criticism of the project came in. It could have been handled better all around, but the team that brought it out have no one to blame but themselves. They clearly misinterpreted and/or exceeded any sort of permission/mandate they had, and it simply spiraled from there.
Agreed, I'd also like to see exactly what happened. Also, I'm not defending them, they definitely didn't handle things well, but I remember things being different from the way you're representing things. Let's not turn this into Us vs Them, it's not useful.
I'm only familiar with a different company's volunteer program, and I only vaguely remember the old WarCor application form. Is there a code of conduct agreement or something in the process?
Ech, this is the problem with deleting that thread. They were definitely saying that the WarCors who didn't contribute to their document didn't care about the state of the rules, and that they had had plenty of time for input (when I'm guessing a lot of the WarCors just didn't want their name on a document that seemed very presumptive). Once it was released, there was also no indication that they were taking other people's input into account - it was all attack, attack, attack, and when someone pointed out they had made a bad call on one rules item or another they'd try to direct them to the thread here, giving no indication that they were actually taking the criticism to heart, and instead seemed like they were trying to use the people critiquing their decisions to build a base of implied consensus for their project.
This is at least partly an aspect of the fact that the Warcor Forum cannot be read by non-Warcors. For example, were the Warcor Forum visible but not not accessible, it would very much change the general forum community opinion about Warcors. For a start, we’d all see how the hostility and tribalistic bickering in the public forum is no better - and sometimes worse in the Warcor Forum. ... or so I’m reliably informed
If that is the case, then they must not have changed the name of the faq to add "unofficial". I do remember a lot of bickering, but honestly it seems to be par for the course.
huh, only a matter of time before that debacle was brought up I guess. My local warcor is a pretty great guy, he runs all the tournaments and often acts as final say in a rules debate. nothing too much more than that to be honest, it doesn't seem like too much responsibility though, so im not really sure where people are coming from acting like it's a second job.
I keep on wondering why that thread was deleted and not just locked. Maybe they could bring it back, if soft deleted / hidden, or whatever is in last backup.
More what I meant was, when it was pointed out that some of the rulings in the document were in error, they gave no signs of actually acknowledging that.
