First rule being that I can't get a confirmation on anything, which is stupid. If I ask about a rule, I guarantee 100% without any doubt that in real life I can ask people to make sure of a ruling and I will not get a harassment lawsuit filed against me and will I likely not have offended anyone. If I want to ask people about a rule to make sure of something and confirm a ruling, then I should have every right to do so. It is utterly ridiculous that I can't say "can anyone else just make sure of this rule? I don't want to spend $100 just to find out on a tournament I can't do that". If a rules adviser answers first that's fine, but if it's some random person who can easily get the ruling wrong (which has happened multiple times, and I've been on both sides of it) then there's simply no logical reason on Earth why I shouldn't simply have the common sense to be cautious and ask to see if anyone else agrees.
Second rule is that I "need" a deck list when I have a completely constructed deck already? What possible reason could there be? Is it honestly that hard to click something and see the entire deck laid out for you in such a way that not only can you view it but that you can play test it? Alexander Pope doing a poem on quantum mechanics would be easier to understand than how the hell these rules were established or how anyone thought they made sense.
These rules should be taken out, they are completely useless and do nothing more than cause frustration, which I guess implies if they are kept then they are purposely meant to cause frustration which is stupid anyway.
First rule being that I can't get a confirmation on anything, which is stupid. If I ask about a rule, I guarantee 100% without any doubt that in real life I can ask people to make sure of a ruling and I will not get a harassment lawsuit filed against me and will I likely not have offended anyone. If I want to ask people about a rule to make sure of something and confirm a ruling, then I should have every right to do so. It is utterly ridiculous that I can't say "can anyone else just make sure of this rule? I don't want to spend $100 just to find out on a tournament I can't do that". If a rules adviser answers first that's fine, but if it's some random person who can easily get the ruling wrong (which has happened multiple times, and I've been on both sides of it) then there's simply no logical reason on Earth why I shouldn't simply have the common sense to be cautious and ask to see if anyone else agrees.
When you do that, it's kind of obnoxious.
"Is this right?"
"Yes, because this, this, and this".
"Are you suuuuuuuuuure? I don't believe you. Is there someone else who can answer?"
If someone is wrong in the rulings forum, they're usually corrected pretty quickly and by multiple people. If you don't understand a rule, I don't see the problem with asking for clarification, maybe along with why you think differently. But just flat-out rejecting an answer because it isn't what you expect? That's just rude.
It also makes the assumption that just because someone is a judge means they know more or are never wrong. People who aren't rules advisers or judges can know just as much, or more, about the rules as people who are, and judges can just as easily miss a ruling. Plus, you never know who really is a judge or rules adviser anyway, not all of us slap it in our sigs (I don't).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Retrodrome!
Hoi, hoi, u embleer hrair
M'saion ulé hraka vair.
All you have to do is ask to be pointed to the relevant sections of the comprehensive rules. If you won't trust people's words, then go to the rule book.
When you do that, it's kind of obnoxious.
"Is this right?"
"Yes, because this, this, and this".
"Are you suuuuuuuuuure? I don't believe you. Is there someone else who can answer?"
If someone is wrong in the rulings forum, they're usually corrected pretty quickly and by multiple people. If you don't understand a rule, I don't see the problem with asking for clarification, maybe along with why you think differently. But just flat-out rejecting an answer because it isn't what you expect? That's just rude.
Maybe you're point is, but my point isn't rude at all. I'm not saying I think they lied, all I'm saying is I want to make absolutely sure. There is a difference between calling someone a liar and simply requesting more evidence of something either way to make sure of something. It shouldn't be a crime to do that, it's common sense to make sure of things. I don't think I said anywhere that I'm rejecting an answer because I didn't expect that answer, you don't really seem to understand the situation at all, I'm saying either I need direct evidence or I need to see if people agree that ruling is correct regardless of what the ruling is, which rules out "what I expect".
It also makes the assumption that just because someone is a judge means they know more or are never wrong. People who aren't rules advisers or judges can know just as much, or more, about the rules as people who are, and judges can just as easily miss a ruling. Plus, you never know who really is a judge or rules adviser anyway, not all of us slap it in our sigs (I don't).
Judges can be wrong, but they've spent a lot of time studying the rules and the chances of being wrong is minimal. If you put the judge thing in your banner and you get basic rules wrong, people will question whether you're actually a judge, but that's why I ask for multiple people to agree on something, not just one or two.
All you have to do is ask to be pointed to the relevant sections of the comprehensive rules. If you won't trust people's words, then go to the rule book.
Well if they referenced the rules themselves and pointed out how the rule corresponded to the ruling there wouldn't be a problem. The problem is there is no particular real reason to believe a random person's first response of the topic where they simply say "yes" or "no", it may as well be a 50/50 chance they are right and there is no rational reason to depend on the structure of your game being based on a 50/50 chance of being right or wrong about rules, you should be able to be confident and have a high probability that every time that the ruling is correct, and in order for that to happen you need more than one random person simply saying "yes" or "no". I don't ever have a problem when people want to make sure of what I say in magic even though I've been playing a while, and even with experience I still get a few things wrong, so I'd rather have people double check than think I'm some infallible god.
If you want to make sure go read the relevant section of the comprehensive rules yourself if you're that afraid that someone is wrong. But to ask "is there anyone here to make sure that ruling is correct?" is quite rude. Let me pose this question. If you don't trust the answer of the first person why trust the answer of the second, third, fourth, or fifth person?
As for the decklist rule, are you talking about tournaments that require you to write out a decklist? Or are you talking about posting decklists here? Don't remotely understand what you're getting at there. If you mean linking to a decklist posted somewhere else versus having the decklist in your post I suggest you get familiar with the copy and paste function available on virtually every computer used today. It isn't hard to copy and paste a decklist from one webpage into a textbox here and put a deck tag around it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Yawgmoth," Freyalise whispered as she set the bomb, "now you will pay for your treachery."
If you want to make sure go read the relevant section of the comprehensive rules yourself if you're that afraid that someone is wrong. But to ask "is there anyone here to make sure that ruling is correct?" is quite rude. Let me pose this question. If you don't trust the answer of the first person why trust the answer of the second, third, fourth, or fifth person?
Because it isn't about trust, it's about evidence. With such a vague answer, I have no reason to believe they're wrong, nor do I have no reason to believe they're right. The more people who can agree on a ruling either way, the more likely it is to be correct because that better supports that that ruling is how people play the game. If I knew where to look I could look at the rules, but I'd still make sure anyway just to make sure I wasn't misinterpreting the rules. You will not have a harassment lawsuit filed against you for making sure of a ruling, it's common sense to double check things and I guarantee you've done it before. If people were "offended" because of a lack of evidence, science wouldn't exist.
As for the decklist rule, are you talking about tournaments that require you to write out a decklist? Or are you talking about posting decklists here? Don't remotely understand what you're getting at there. If you mean linking to a decklist posted somewhere else versus having the decklist in your post I suggest you get familiar with the copy and paste function available on virtually every computer used today. It isn't hard to copy and paste a decklist from one webpage into a textbox here and put a deck tag around it.
If text didn't get messed up with double links and underlines and extra spaces I could do it just fine, but otherwise it's just an annoyance. Already constructed the deck, then I have to reconstruct it from scratch again when there's a perfectly legitimate and testable deck right in the link.
I'd need a more clear example of what you're referring to here, but in certain parts of the site we don't allow simply posting a link to your decklist for two reasons:
Depending on where that link is it's directing traffic away from MTG Salvation.
A lot of users don't want to have to click a link to a site they may not be familiar with.
And it's simply way more practical to have everything in one place rather than having to check links to get all the information from a post, when that just as well could have been included in the post. Especially for first posts in threads, we do require some effort put into them.
And often off-site decklists also have their own comments sections, so by linking to those instead, you're also often splitting up the discussion.
I'd need a more clear example of what you're referring to here, but in certain parts of the site we don't allow simply posting a link to your decklist for two reasons:
Depending on where that link is it's directing traffic away from MTG Salvation.
A lot of users don't want to have to click a link to a site they may not be familiar with.
mtgdeckbuilder.net, which I'm sure is trusted. Every time I copy a whole list there's a weird big space and I end up only getting some weird link to the deck and not the deck list itself so I have to end up manually retype the deck on here if I want people to view the deck only here, which is pretty annoying because I post a bit of decks.
You don't want traffic being directed away from the site, yet this site can't provide everything, so either this site has to provide what other sites have, or you can't blame people for going to other sites, and if that many people are honestly saying "this site is way better, I quit mtgsalvaton forever", doesn't that mean this site could use some improvement anyway? And on top of that, it doesn't actually "take" views merely to look at a deck. In both scenarios a person would come to a thread and see the deck list, 1 page view, the only difference is in one scenario, the person also in addition to the initial page view goes to some exterior site to test a deck out which this site cannot do, and then on top of that because they got to test it, it would be easier for them to give feed back adding on the this site. Users don't want to hover a mouse over something and click it? If it were malware, modern browsers could warn you and if I were intentionally distributing malware then I could just lie about what's in the link to get people to come to it anyway, but it says every time I link a deck there "http:\\www.mtgdeckbuilder.net", people can see it's not something like "gaypornadbombs.com".
And it's simply way more practical to have everything in one place rather than having to check links to get all the information from a post, when that just as well could have been included in the post. Especially for first posts in threads, we do require some effort put into them.
And often off-site decklists also have their own comments sections, so by linking to those instead, you're also often splitting up the discussion.
Isn't an exterior site actually more practical because on mtgdeckbuilder or other test deck sites because you can actually test a deck and you don't have to click a link to see the card, you just hover over it and it shows you visually, and it definitely takes up less space on this site which means more room to fit in posts on a single page. I already put in the effort when I researched cards, constructed the deck, tested it 60 times and then made adjustments before I thought it was good enough to show people.
Isn't actually more practical because on mtgdeckbuilder or other test deck sites because you can actually test a deck and you don't have to click a link to see the card, you just hover over it and it shows you visually, and it takes up less space. I already put in the effort when I researched cards, constructed the deck, tested it 60 times and then made adjustments before I thought it was good enough to show people.
It is more practical, because instead of having the information in one place and the discussion somewhere else, we have both in the same place.
It is more practical, because instead of having the information in one place and the discussion somewhere else, we have both in the same place.
But it also takes up way less space to simply link to a site that better lets users view decks, if anything it's more efficient, and also it's really annoying and that rule doesn't at all have to be there, the site can fully function without that rule. At the very least, there should be a list of "trusted sites".
Spam takes up less space than meaningful posts - it's not something we're concerned about. Decklists aren't worthless space, so finding room for them in posts isn't just okay, it's encouraged, and in some cases even mandatory, because it makes for a smoother browsing experience. It is much easier to browse the forum if you can click on a thread, and the information you need is in that thread, not spread out across multiple sites.
The forum could function fully without the rule, but many of our rules are there only to make the reading experience better - to make it nicer and easier for other users to read your posts. I agree it's not crucial, but I do think it is overall beneficial to the forum. I realize it can be annoying to get warnings, but the rules do have a logical purpose.
Alright, well then how about the other issue? I've never had a problem with people double checking what I say, and people make sure of things all the time.
Alright, well then how about the other issue? I've never had a problem with people double checking what I say, and people make sure of things all the time.
I was under the impression that the moderator has talked this through with you already already, am I incorrect?
Alright, well then how about the other issue? I've never had a problem with people double checking what I say, and people make sure of things all the time.
For your other issue we have already tried to explain it to you. In the opinion of all 3 Rulings you did not have a valid reason to question the answer that you were given as such you were warned for it.
We in the rulings community provide a voluntary service where we pride our selves on the accuracy of the answers that we have provided and regardless of your intent in asking for clarification, solely on the basis that is was the first answer, what you did was insult the responder by imply that person was not capable of giving you a correct answer.
We have no problems with people questioning the answers given but there needs to be a valid reason to do so and it being the first answer given certainly isn't one.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
For your other issue we have already tried to explain it to you. In the opinion of all 3 Rulings you did not have a valid reason to question the answer that you were given as such you were warned for it.
Except you're not understanding that there's no reason to believe it or hold it true either. It's literally just a 50/50 chance they are right, and there is no reason to rely on a 50/50 chance for the understanding of the rules.
[COLOR='DarkSlateBlue']We in the rulings community provide a voluntary service where we pride our selves on the accuracy of the answers that we have provided and regardless of your intent in asking for clarification, solely on the basis that is was the first answer, what you did was insult the responder by imply that person was not capable of giving you a correct answer.
Yeah and I help out people with the rule some times too, a lot in real life, but I'm definitely not charging money for it and I definitely don't "pride" myself for knowing the rules, and I most certainly did not imply they were "incapable" of giving the right answer, I implied that there is no particular reason to believe a random individual response, which is regardless of who the person is, which means it definitely wasn't an insult nor was it personally directed at them. If some random person answers and all that is there is a single yes or no response, there is logically no reason to assume there is even a 90% chance that person is correct. If it's a rules adviser or judge, there's a higher chance they're right, but that's about it.
[COLOR='DarkSlateBlue']We have no problems with people questioning the answers given but there needs to be a valid reason to do so and it being the first answer given certainly isn't one.[/COLOR]
The reason is that they provided no reason to believe them over a 50% chance of being right.
Have you considered that maybe you aren't getting the appropriate ruling responses because people can't understand you? I had to very carefully re-read just the first sentence in your OP multiple times.
Good practices include typing in short sentences and proofreading your posts.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'll be sad if people don't start calling The Chain Veil "Fleetwood Mac."
Have you considered that maybe you aren't getting the appropriate ruling responses because people can't understand you? I had to very carefully re-read just the first sentence in your OP multiple times.
Good practices include typing in short sentences and proofreading your posts.
No, that's definitely 100% not the issue. Phrasing has nothing to do with it, subjective opinion has nothing to do with it. The problem is that a ruling cannot logically be conclusive with no evidence and one vague yes/no response. For most rulings I have no idea what the answer is either way and so I have no specific answer that I "expect", meaning that I wouldn't be able to tell if they misinterpreted my phrasing from a vague yes/no answer anyway.
Except you're not understanding that there's no reason to believe it or hold it true either. It's literally just a 50/50 chance they are right, and there is no reason to rely on a 50/50 chance for the understanding of the rules.
I don't know where this 50/50 number comes from though. I bet you could go to the rules section. Pull the 1st answer of every rules question... and over 90% of the time it will turn out to be the correct answer. I just looked through the rules forum and did my own informal poll. They usually get it right. It only seems like 50/50 because from your perspective you have no way of knowing how much they know about magic. Well, let me assure you... they usually get it right. And the few times they don't get it right, someone will correct them. You don't have to ask for confirmation because either no one will correct them, or someone will.
You aren't going to get suspended for doing that unless you just make a really bad habit of asking for confirmations every time you ask a rules question. That's the whole point of warnings and the 3 red active infractions you would need to get your account suspended. That system is there so that there is no possible way to get into "real" trouble because you aren't familiar with the rules.
No, that's definitely 100% not the issue. Phrasing has nothing to do with it, subjective opinion has nothing to do with it. The problem is that a ruling cannot logically be conclusive with no evidence and one vague yes/no response. For most rulings I have no idea what the answer is either way and so I have no specific answer that I "expect", meaning that I wouldn't be able to tell if they misinterpreted my phrasing from a vague yes/no answer anyway.
There seems to be two possibilities here.
First, the answer doesn't give an explanation. If this is the case, then yes, you should ask for further clarification, and possibly report the post, since "Yes" and "No" doesn't help people and is called out in the forum rules.
Second, if the answer does have an explanation, as most answers do, then the answers that have been given so far in this thread apply, and you should give a specific reason to question the answer. If you have a reason for doubting the answer, say so. If you're just obsessed with being skeptical, then you're not helping yourself or anyone by questioning an answer just to question it.
First, the answer doesn't give an explanation. If this is the case, then yes, you should ask for further clarification, and possibly report the post, since "Yes" and "No" doesn't help people and is called out in the forum rules.
Second, if the answer does have an explanation, as most answers do, then the answers that have been given so far in this thread apply, and you should give a specific reason to question the answer. If you have a reason for doubting the answer, say so. If you're just obsessed with being skeptical, then you're not helping yourself or anyone by questioning an answer just to question it.
Or if I just want to make sure, I don't need to question anything, I just ask the general community who "prides itself on accuracy" to confirm an answer with as many people as I can get and no one has to be offended because no specific person is being personally declared as wrong. You still don't get that it's not about doubting a specific person, it's about doubting an answer no matter who gives it because there's no particular thing swaying the argument one way or another.
Please stop misrepresenting the issue. If the first answer had in fact been a vague yes or no, the person answering you would have gotten a warning, not you, because answers need to be explained. But the answer did contain an explanation, and in my eyes a sufficient one at that. This is the thread in question, so that everyone knows what we're talking about here.
The problem is not so much asking for confirmation, but the apparent tone and reasoning. If you don't understand the reasoning, that's okay, and in that case you are certainly within your right to ask for clarification. To make sure you could also ask for a specific rules quote. That would have been okay, too, and you wouldn't have gotten that warning.
Some examples:
* "I am not convinced / I don't understand, can you elaborate?"
You give a valid reason, and you imply that it is okay if the clarification comes from the same person.
* "My friends only believe me if I can show them a rule number. Can anyone show me a specific quote from the rules?"
Again we have a valid reason for the follow-up question, and asking for anyone to provide the rules quote is okay, too.
* "You are the first poster but you are not a rules advisor, so your answer alone is not good enough unless someone else provides back-up."
The only reason for the follow-up is the mere fact that he was first and that the poster is not a rules advisor. You pretty much admitted that you would have accepted the answer if it had come from a rules advisor, and that alone is quite troubling. A correct answer is correct regardless of who gives it. And by asking for a confirmation by someone else you don't even give the first poster the chance to defend or elaborate the answer. You are simply saying that his help is worthless unless it is backed up by someone you trust more. I hope you can finally understand what makes this scenario of second-guessing not okay.
This may have not been your intent, but this is exactly how your post read like. You were simply given a warning, not an infraction, and you certainly did not have a harrassment lawsuit filed against you. Please understand what you did wrong, learn from that experience and move on.
Hope this helps.
Yeah, there's no problem with saying a rules adviser would have a higher chance of being right, doesn't mean I don't want other people to confirm it though, because I said a judge can still possibly be wrong and said I prefer multiple people to confirm something, which for some reason I have to keep repeating. Even if there is some kind of 10 second explanation, a single answer still isn't good enough to be 100% sure, and it won't be no matter what. At the very least in order for a single answer to be good enough, it should quote the rule of the rule book that corresponds too it, place those rules in the said scenario, and draw a logical correlation to the conclusion of the ruling using the referenced rule(s). But I rarely see that. If you read the post and literally interpret it, I all I am literally saying is I don't want to rely on just the an individual's first answer because other individuals have been wrong, implying that it is better if multiple people answered, and then I ask for others to confirm the ruling.
* "You are the first poster but you are not a rules advisor, so your answer alone is not good enough unless someone else provides back-up."
I can quote myself earlier saying even if some judge answers I still prefer multiple people to answer. Should I be offended you aren't reading what I say? I didn't call anyone a liar, all I did was imply there's a chance they could be wrong and that I want to make absolutely certain, there's hardly any other way to read it seeing as how I didn't say "you are wrong" or "you're a liar". I didn't even say a rules adviser or judge had to answer, all I said was things can get complicated and then they end up clearing up the discussion later. I you read the literal interpretation of what was said, there isn't a problem.
Chen, you have to realize though how it looks to others when you ask a question... they answer and then you go "I want a second opinion". I understand that you probably weren't saying you think they are lying or stupid, but that's how other people can interpret it. That's why they came up with such a rule.
In the future you can... instead of asking flat out for someone to confirm it... ask a follow up question. "Can you elaborate on why that is the case?" or "Can someone tell me the relevant rule that applies here?". Usually asking a question like that would result in someone else chiming in with a confirmation that the answer is right.
And again, I go back to the point I brought up earlier. What is it about the rules forum that has you so worried about the accuracy of the answers? They usually get the answer right. I can see if you have a complex question involving layers, clone effects and stuff like that... that maybe you might want more clarification. But "Does Torpor Orb nullify comes into play effects?... it's pretty straight forward. They are going to get questions like that right 100% of the time.
Here's the problem: people can saying "change the tone and you will never have a problem", that's your guys guarantee, but it says in the forum rules when posting about rulings that "1 post is sufficient". Logically, there's no way a single post from a random person who I've never even met is sufficient for me to be sure of anything either way, so get rid of that rule and tone won't be an issue. I've asked for second opinions more than once and I intend to do it again, I don't want to get a warning every single time I do.
I've asked for second opinions more than once and I intend to do it again, I don't want to get a warning every single time I do.
Then you should listen to them and word it better. Ask for a specific rulebook citation.
EDIT: Also, you won't get a warning every single time you do. You've gotten a warning, from now on it'll be infractions. Three in a close enough time frame and you'll get suspended.
Here's the problem: people can saying "change the tone and you will never have a problem", that's your guys guarantee, but it says in the forum rules when posting about rulings that "1 post is sufficient". Logically, there's no way a single post from a random person who I've never even met is sufficient for me to be sure of anything either way, so get rid of that rule and tone won't be an issue. I've asked for second opinions more than once and I intend to do it again, I don't want to get a warning every single time I do.
Just look at this from the perspective of someone who answers rules questions regularly. You click on a thread asking about Torpor Orb, see that it's already been answered 100% correctly, and you leave. That's it.
I guarantee this happens at least a dozen times with every question. That's why you don't need to be concerned about the legitimacy of a single answer - because that answer has already been checked by the dozen others trolling the rules section. They've got it covered. You really don't need to ask for confirmation at all because if the first post is ever wrong, it will be corrected, usually by multiple people and usually within a matter of minutes.
Here's the problem: people can saying "change the tone and you will never have a problem", that's your guys guarantee, but it says in the forum rules when posting about rulings that "1 post is sufficient". Logically, there's no way a single post from a random person who I've never even met is sufficient for me to be sure of anything either way, so get rid of that rule and tone won't be an issue. I've asked for second opinions more than once and I intend to do it again, I don't want to get a warning every single time I do.
I'm going to use an analogy. Be warned; like most analogies it isn't going to be 100% accurate but you should get the gist of it.
If you're sick and you go to the doctor do you question his diagnosis every time? If he says, "You've got the flu," do you respond, "Can you get someone else to give me their diagnosis?" Probably not.
The rulings forum here is very much like a doctor's office that's staffed by doctors. More often than not your question will be answered by a resident instead of a full MD, but it's not like that resident is a guy coming off his first FNM win after playing for a couple weeks. The answer you're given is highly likely to be correct, and, as already stated here a few times, will be quickly corrected by others if needed.
Remember, the rulings forum is a voluntary effort and you are not entitled to answers, correct or otherwise. Insisting on having a judge or RA answer or confirm answers for your questions is crossing a line and is a good way to get yourself on a lot of people's ignore lists. Instead, trust the system; you're not going to get accidentally diagnosed with the plague here.
Second rule is that I "need" a deck list when I have a completely constructed deck already? What possible reason could there be? Is it honestly that hard to click something and see the entire deck laid out for you in such a way that not only can you view it but that you can play test it? Alexander Pope doing a poem on quantum mechanics would be easier to understand than how the hell these rules were established or how anyone thought they made sense.
These rules should be taken out, they are completely useless and do nothing more than cause frustration, which I guess implies if they are kept then they are purposely meant to cause frustration which is stupid anyway.
When you do that, it's kind of obnoxious.
"Is this right?"
"Yes, because this, this, and this".
"Are you suuuuuuuuuure? I don't believe you. Is there someone else who can answer?"
If someone is wrong in the rulings forum, they're usually corrected pretty quickly and by multiple people. If you don't understand a rule, I don't see the problem with asking for clarification, maybe along with why you think differently. But just flat-out rejecting an answer because it isn't what you expect? That's just rude.
It also makes the assumption that just because someone is a judge means they know more or are never wrong. People who aren't rules advisers or judges can know just as much, or more, about the rules as people who are, and judges can just as easily miss a ruling. Plus, you never know who really is a judge or rules adviser anyway, not all of us slap it in our sigs (I don't).
Hoi, hoi, u embleer hrair
M'saion ulé hraka vair.
Maybe you're point is, but my point isn't rude at all. I'm not saying I think they lied, all I'm saying is I want to make absolutely sure. There is a difference between calling someone a liar and simply requesting more evidence of something either way to make sure of something. It shouldn't be a crime to do that, it's common sense to make sure of things. I don't think I said anywhere that I'm rejecting an answer because I didn't expect that answer, you don't really seem to understand the situation at all, I'm saying either I need direct evidence or I need to see if people agree that ruling is correct regardless of what the ruling is, which rules out "what I expect".
Judges can be wrong, but they've spent a lot of time studying the rules and the chances of being wrong is minimal. If you put the judge thing in your banner and you get basic rules wrong, people will question whether you're actually a judge, but that's why I ask for multiple people to agree on something, not just one or two.
Well if they referenced the rules themselves and pointed out how the rule corresponded to the ruling there wouldn't be a problem. The problem is there is no particular real reason to believe a random person's first response of the topic where they simply say "yes" or "no", it may as well be a 50/50 chance they are right and there is no rational reason to depend on the structure of your game being based on a 50/50 chance of being right or wrong about rules, you should be able to be confident and have a high probability that every time that the ruling is correct, and in order for that to happen you need more than one random person simply saying "yes" or "no". I don't ever have a problem when people want to make sure of what I say in magic even though I've been playing a while, and even with experience I still get a few things wrong, so I'd rather have people double check than think I'm some infallible god.
As for the decklist rule, are you talking about tournaments that require you to write out a decklist? Or are you talking about posting decklists here? Don't remotely understand what you're getting at there. If you mean linking to a decklist posted somewhere else versus having the decklist in your post I suggest you get familiar with the copy and paste function available on virtually every computer used today. It isn't hard to copy and paste a decklist from one webpage into a textbox here and put a deck tag around it.
Currently Playing:
Retired
Because it isn't about trust, it's about evidence. With such a vague answer, I have no reason to believe they're wrong, nor do I have no reason to believe they're right. The more people who can agree on a ruling either way, the more likely it is to be correct because that better supports that that ruling is how people play the game. If I knew where to look I could look at the rules, but I'd still make sure anyway just to make sure I wasn't misinterpreting the rules. You will not have a harassment lawsuit filed against you for making sure of a ruling, it's common sense to double check things and I guarantee you've done it before. If people were "offended" because of a lack of evidence, science wouldn't exist.
If text didn't get messed up with double links and underlines and extra spaces I could do it just fine, but otherwise it's just an annoyance. Already constructed the deck, then I have to reconstruct it from scratch again when there's a perfectly legitimate and testable deck right in the link.
And it's simply way more practical to have everything in one place rather than having to check links to get all the information from a post, when that just as well could have been included in the post. Especially for first posts in threads, we do require some effort put into them.
And often off-site decklists also have their own comments sections, so by linking to those instead, you're also often splitting up the discussion.
mtgdeckbuilder.net, which I'm sure is trusted. Every time I copy a whole list there's a weird big space and I end up only getting some weird link to the deck and not the deck list itself so I have to end up manually retype the deck on here if I want people to view the deck only here, which is pretty annoying because I post a bit of decks.
You don't want traffic being directed away from the site, yet this site can't provide everything, so either this site has to provide what other sites have, or you can't blame people for going to other sites, and if that many people are honestly saying "this site is way better, I quit mtgsalvaton forever", doesn't that mean this site could use some improvement anyway? And on top of that, it doesn't actually "take" views merely to look at a deck. In both scenarios a person would come to a thread and see the deck list, 1 page view, the only difference is in one scenario, the person also in addition to the initial page view goes to some exterior site to test a deck out which this site cannot do, and then on top of that because they got to test it, it would be easier for them to give feed back adding on the this site. Users don't want to hover a mouse over something and click it? If it were malware, modern browsers could warn you and if I were intentionally distributing malware then I could just lie about what's in the link to get people to come to it anyway, but it says every time I link a deck there "http:\\www.mtgdeckbuilder.net", people can see it's not something like "gaypornadbombs.com".
Isn't an exterior site actually more practical because on mtgdeckbuilder or other test deck sites because you can actually test a deck and you don't have to click a link to see the card, you just hover over it and it shows you visually, and it definitely takes up less space on this site which means more room to fit in posts on a single page. I already put in the effort when I researched cards, constructed the deck, tested it 60 times and then made adjustments before I thought it was good enough to show people.
It is more practical, because instead of having the information in one place and the discussion somewhere else, we have both in the same place.
But it also takes up way less space to simply link to a site that better lets users view decks, if anything it's more efficient, and also it's really annoying and that rule doesn't at all have to be there, the site can fully function without that rule. At the very least, there should be a list of "trusted sites".
The forum could function fully without the rule, but many of our rules are there only to make the reading experience better - to make it nicer and easier for other users to read your posts. I agree it's not crucial, but I do think it is overall beneficial to the forum. I realize it can be annoying to get warnings, but the rules do have a logical purpose.
I was under the impression that the moderator has talked this through with you already already, am I incorrect?
For your other issue we have already tried to explain it to you. In the opinion of all 3 Rulings you did not have a valid reason to question the answer that you were given as such you were warned for it.
We in the rulings community provide a voluntary service where we pride our selves on the accuracy of the answers that we have provided and regardless of your intent in asking for clarification, solely on the basis that is was the first answer, what you did was insult the responder by imply that person was not capable of giving you a correct answer.
We have no problems with people questioning the answers given but there needs to be a valid reason to do so and it being the first answer given certainly isn't one.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
Except you're not understanding that there's no reason to believe it or hold it true either. It's literally just a 50/50 chance they are right, and there is no reason to rely on a 50/50 chance for the understanding of the rules.
Yeah and I help out people with the rule some times too, a lot in real life, but I'm definitely not charging money for it and I definitely don't "pride" myself for knowing the rules, and I most certainly did not imply they were "incapable" of giving the right answer, I implied that there is no particular reason to believe a random individual response, which is regardless of who the person is, which means it definitely wasn't an insult nor was it personally directed at them. If some random person answers and all that is there is a single yes or no response, there is logically no reason to assume there is even a 90% chance that person is correct. If it's a rules adviser or judge, there's a higher chance they're right, but that's about it.
The reason is that they provided no reason to believe them over a 50% chance of being right.
Good practices include typing in short sentences and proofreading your posts.
No, that's definitely 100% not the issue. Phrasing has nothing to do with it, subjective opinion has nothing to do with it. The problem is that a ruling cannot logically be conclusive with no evidence and one vague yes/no response. For most rulings I have no idea what the answer is either way and so I have no specific answer that I "expect", meaning that I wouldn't be able to tell if they misinterpreted my phrasing from a vague yes/no answer anyway.
I don't know where this 50/50 number comes from though. I bet you could go to the rules section. Pull the 1st answer of every rules question... and over 90% of the time it will turn out to be the correct answer. I just looked through the rules forum and did my own informal poll. They usually get it right. It only seems like 50/50 because from your perspective you have no way of knowing how much they know about magic. Well, let me assure you... they usually get it right. And the few times they don't get it right, someone will correct them. You don't have to ask for confirmation because either no one will correct them, or someone will.
You aren't going to get suspended for doing that unless you just make a really bad habit of asking for confirmations every time you ask a rules question. That's the whole point of warnings and the 3 red active infractions you would need to get your account suspended. That system is there so that there is no possible way to get into "real" trouble because you aren't familiar with the rules.
There seems to be two possibilities here.
First, the answer doesn't give an explanation. If this is the case, then yes, you should ask for further clarification, and possibly report the post, since "Yes" and "No" doesn't help people and is called out in the forum rules.
Second, if the answer does have an explanation, as most answers do, then the answers that have been given so far in this thread apply, and you should give a specific reason to question the answer. If you have a reason for doubting the answer, say so. If you're just obsessed with being skeptical, then you're not helping yourself or anyone by questioning an answer just to question it.
When in doubt, call a judge.
Objectivist here. Hit me up to talk philosophy.
Or if I just want to make sure, I don't need to question anything, I just ask the general community who "prides itself on accuracy" to confirm an answer with as many people as I can get and no one has to be offended because no specific person is being personally declared as wrong. You still don't get that it's not about doubting a specific person, it's about doubting an answer no matter who gives it because there's no particular thing swaying the argument one way or another.
Yeah, there's no problem with saying a rules adviser would have a higher chance of being right, doesn't mean I don't want other people to confirm it though, because I said a judge can still possibly be wrong and said I prefer multiple people to confirm something, which for some reason I have to keep repeating. Even if there is some kind of 10 second explanation, a single answer still isn't good enough to be 100% sure, and it won't be no matter what. At the very least in order for a single answer to be good enough, it should quote the rule of the rule book that corresponds too it, place those rules in the said scenario, and draw a logical correlation to the conclusion of the ruling using the referenced rule(s). But I rarely see that. If you read the post and literally interpret it, I all I am literally saying is I don't want to rely on just the an individual's first answer because other individuals have been wrong, implying that it is better if multiple people answered, and then I ask for others to confirm the ruling.
I can quote myself earlier saying even if some judge answers I still prefer multiple people to answer. Should I be offended you aren't reading what I say? I didn't call anyone a liar, all I did was imply there's a chance they could be wrong and that I want to make absolutely certain, there's hardly any other way to read it seeing as how I didn't say "you are wrong" or "you're a liar". I didn't even say a rules adviser or judge had to answer, all I said was things can get complicated and then they end up clearing up the discussion later. I you read the literal interpretation of what was said, there isn't a problem.
In the future you can... instead of asking flat out for someone to confirm it... ask a follow up question. "Can you elaborate on why that is the case?" or "Can someone tell me the relevant rule that applies here?". Usually asking a question like that would result in someone else chiming in with a confirmation that the answer is right.
And again, I go back to the point I brought up earlier. What is it about the rules forum that has you so worried about the accuracy of the answers? They usually get the answer right. I can see if you have a complex question involving layers, clone effects and stuff like that... that maybe you might want more clarification. But "Does Torpor Orb nullify comes into play effects?... it's pretty straight forward. They are going to get questions like that right 100% of the time.
Then you should listen to them and word it better. Ask for a specific rulebook citation.
EDIT: Also, you won't get a warning every single time you do. You've gotten a warning, from now on it'll be infractions. Three in a close enough time frame and you'll get suspended.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
Just look at this from the perspective of someone who answers rules questions regularly. You click on a thread asking about Torpor Orb, see that it's already been answered 100% correctly, and you leave. That's it.
I guarantee this happens at least a dozen times with every question. That's why you don't need to be concerned about the legitimacy of a single answer - because that answer has already been checked by the dozen others trolling the rules section. They've got it covered. You really don't need to ask for confirmation at all because if the first post is ever wrong, it will be corrected, usually by multiple people and usually within a matter of minutes.
I'm going to use an analogy. Be warned; like most analogies it isn't going to be 100% accurate but you should get the gist of it.
If you're sick and you go to the doctor do you question his diagnosis every time? If he says, "You've got the flu," do you respond, "Can you get someone else to give me their diagnosis?" Probably not.
The rulings forum here is very much like a doctor's office that's staffed by doctors. More often than not your question will be answered by a resident instead of a full MD, but it's not like that resident is a guy coming off his first FNM win after playing for a couple weeks. The answer you're given is highly likely to be correct, and, as already stated here a few times, will be quickly corrected by others if needed.
Remember, the rulings forum is a voluntary effort and you are not entitled to answers, correct or otherwise. Insisting on having a judge or RA answer or confirm answers for your questions is crossing a line and is a good way to get yourself on a lot of people's ignore lists. Instead, trust the system; you're not going to get accidentally diagnosed with the plague here.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.