Oracle for Infinity

With a system as complex as Infinity, clear rules should be top priority, so I do agree that CB should invest more resources into releasing FAQs on a regular basis and make official ad-hoc rulings. If the hierarchy is as flat as IJW->Gutier, it shouldn't be much of a problem.

 

As much as IJW being a very good source for rules as written, an Oracle/Infernal system (O-12 Commissioner?) would mean interpreting rules so they function. IJW shouldering that job alone is not only a burden that CB would need to pay him for, but also would mean that you'd have a system where you'd lack the function of perspective that, just to name two additional people I'd trust with a role like this, Solkan and Toadchild would bring to the team.

I do not doubt that the job would for the most part consist of making interim decisions, considering the slow pace at which CB publishes FAQs (which have a tendency to neither answer frequent questions nor the most difficult questions). So for instance, they'd be making an interim decision for how Marksmanship LX should function when used through Nimbus until such a time as CB clarifies how they want it to work. Additionally, having more language skills (primarily Spanish) would be extremely good since the game is published in increasing number of languages and you'd sometimes need to keep track of what's localization issues.

So, ideally more people than just one person.

 

Very Pan-O, something more neutral would work better. PP used their looming threat end-game-scenario for theirs, but you know, something people don't play or takes sides on.

 

The issues I see with this is, as much as I think Toadchild and Solkan do great work for the community, neither of them are infallible certainly not in a rules sense.

If they are asked to make rules determinations without gutiers help then we are basically back to what the current forums are, where rules are discussed until a "Consensus" is reached where the active and reasonably cooperative members of the forum come to a conclusion.

Bonus points if IJW weights into the debate.

But typically its the harder ones that require clear insight into the intention that cause the issues, and IJW gets that insight through discussions with Gutier in terms of translation. Toadchild and Solkan would have to be given that insight.

Finally, and this point very specifically is not directed at Solkan and Toadchild.
IF Cb were inclined to take community members and use them in this manner, those community members would have to be upstanding, people who have been contributing for years to this hooby, with no questionable actions, videos or arguments made, no history within their local community or actions that may or may not have led them into disrepute such that the company should not allow them to represent them in any capacity, Basically the standards for entry into this club would have to be higher than even Warcors.

Basically they would have to be posters that the community could trust to forward on the arguments for and against issues to CB and back to the community without bias or a willingness to guide the direction of the argument for personal vindication.

 

Why exactly I am not involved in the rules?

 

I can't speak to the posters who brought it up in the first place, but there's a general expectation of a delineation between someone moderating forums and people actually involved in development. It's an expectation cast through standards in video gaming and tabletop gaming.

You may be involved in playtesting and have an equal understanding of rules intent as IJW but merely the existence of the perception that it's not the case, regardless of how true it is or isn't, harms the idea of putting you in an official "rules adjudicator" type role I think.

 

1) you arent, by your own admission, a CB employee
2) IJW while not being a CB employee both helped translate the rules into english and has by his own admission been involved in the core working structure of those rules for N3.
3) you certainly dont have IJW's reputation for understanding the rules or the implications thereof and being active about that knowledge in the rules threads.

 

If we are reccomending forum members, I've yet to see @Spleen make a rules mistake in about 3 years of playing. He doesnt have IJW's insight into the rules intention but he has the Rules as Written down pat.

 

Hardly @Wolf .

I do my bit with tactics and primers, and running campaigns and tournaments in australia, I certainly would not want to put my hand up for what is being proposed here.

Are we going to keep this civil?

 

These are some really weird assumptions!

1) Yes, neither me nor @ijw or many other in the playtesters and proofreaders are CB employees, what does been a CB employee exactly means?
2) Likewise, so what is your point? should I start boasting that in many of the core rules you read I am involved, some may be even written by me?
3) I do not know what does that mean, I was the FAQ retainer for 1st and second edition, I did not answer the N3 rules because @ijw did a great job and the forum has exploded in activity.

I do not understand why people who are involved in the rules and are credited for that need to provide street cred or be "CB employees" to be right on a ruling...

 

"shrug" you never struck me as involved in the rules storm, not in the way IJW is, outside of certain discussions of course.

As for reputation, I mentioned that because what is being proposed is community members stepping up with interim rules. Its hard enough getting people to accept @ijw rulings or statements on the intent of the rules sometimes, therefore I figured anyone on that "community" panel would want to have a certain standing in the rules subsection of the forum. Honestly if you want to argue with hecaton more....I mean I wouldnt want too

 

Regardless we will hopefully have a better FAQ soon please keep the suggestions about it.

 

Yes I particularly like the other discussion we were having about it. And I believe we at least can all agree that more frequent FAQ support from CB is good for us all

 

Depends on what you're asking. If you're asking for official ruling that will make it to the pdf eventually, then you're asking for a CB employee. What is asked for in this thread is a tribunal for settling rules disputes in liue of official answer.
Theoretically they would also be filters for CB, answering the easier questions in official manner and passing on the harder, game-altering, stuff making the contact surface between community smaller and manageable for CB.

While I agree they need to be upstanding members, I do not think that infallible conduct is as important as being able to conduct themselves within a role. I.e. keep disagreements and discussion on one account and a different commissioner account to deliver verdicts that are concensus with the other commissioners.

 

The last FAQ cycle was over 18 months long and it answered 7 questions, some of which were 2 years old.

Dedication to more frequent and timely FAQ that is known by the community at large (its been 6 months, new faq should be out soon what have you)

You don't have to tackle the mountain with TNT to take it down all at once but each shovel full does reduce it.