Rules Team Rulings - 22-APR-2013

echiang wrote:

Straw man argument using slippery slope reasoning to portray that greater transparency would lead to an extreme situation.

I recognize that there are some commercial issues that the IC may not want to reveal. But there are also plenty of other areas (such as explanations for the rulings, or how the rulings are decided) which don't fall under that purview so that excuse doesn't really apply.

Not intended at all as a "slippery slope" argument. I wanted to actually wonder where you thought this transparency should extend. It seemed strange that you would applaud the EC minutes being public, but not also call for the IC minutes to be public. Why insist on RTR notes/thoughts being public and not for the IC minutes to be public? This is not a slippery slope argument in the slightest.

This argument is far closer to: If your representatives are going to be required to publish some reasons, why shouldn't they therefore publish all of them?

The comments about commercial-in-confidence information is purely to acknowledge that contracts made by the VEKN should be honoured where they contain such non-disclosure clauses as may be relevant.

Oh it was certainly important to me then as well. When I was on the IC, I viewed the VEKN as a very flawed organization but one that could be improved and I was hopeful that I could help in improving it. I readily shared that personal opinion to people I talked to.

And where was this public discussion? Or was it for instance primarily limited to Carl P and Jeff Kuta? Where is the evidence of your efforts to increase transparency in your own area - Storyline Events - and for example, transcripts or excerpts of the proposed storylines, playtesting results, background thoughts on the development of storyline reward cards, etc? If you would not do these in your own role when you potentially had the power to do it, why do you now insist that Pascal do the same?

If you would like transparency about your own role, I would like to register with you a complaint about the card Lilith's Blessing. It seems badly designed and prolongs the game by adding excessive amounts of resources into the game for a comparatively low opportunity cost. In addition, the design of the card also adds needless complexity by the addition of a new otherwise redundant keyword. To cap it off, and possibly the worst of the offences, is the fact that by design it eliminates hunt actions and reduces the number of potential minion interactions (which is a strength of the game).

I would also bring you to task over the cards which were obvious Storyline cards which appeared in the playtesting I was part of. However, they are bound by NDA AND you are no longer involved in their design, so I unfortunately cannot raise my issues regarding those cards with you anymore.

No, the demands for transparency are *not* recent, as seen with Johannes, Hugh, and Mike who asked for more transparency almost 10 years ago.

Demands made back with it was run by a company and LSJ was an employee? Did you then proceed to attack LSJs decision making processes or WWs production processes back then? If not then, why do it now?

And this is another example where means and process is important, not just ends. Hypothetically, if I was only concerned about the end result (as you are in your "I DON'T CARE" about process post) of VEKN being more transparent, I could actually force a greater degree of transparency simply by sharing every single detail I have available of my time as an Inner Circle member (for which I am *not* under any sort of non-disclosure agreement or confidentiality agreement). I choose not to do that because I believe that forcing it is less effective than trying to encourage it to organically develop.

My position on means and process, when it comes to the design and development of a product is: does the product work? Since the production of these products involves basically testing of intellectual property, then if the method produces functional cards then the method is sound. That does not mean the method needs to be transparent. You would not ask Wizards of the Coast how they design editions of D&D (and gosh knows I want to know what kind of drugs were being smoked before they designed 4E) and then berate the company when they didn't tell you. They would probably tell you something like I am "Judge our methods on the product they create".

On the same score, since Lilith's Blessing is presumably a card you were involved in designing then it reflects badly that it is the one which was banned. I would therefore suggest your design methods are flawed. (Of course predicated on the fact you were responsible for designing Lilith's Blessing).

If you have no fear of releasing the details of the Inner Circle, the please prove it. Put your money where your mouth is Eric. Tell us why the Inner Circle decided to remove you.

To use DeathInABottle's analogy I'd rather stand in front of city hall as a protester requesting a meeting with the mayor, even if I could achieve what I wanted through heavy-handed tactics.

And that might work if anyone on the VEKN was an elected official instead of effectively an appointed member. See points about "VEKN is not a Democracy". The "mayor" in this case doesn't have to make an appointment with you.

Yes, I have admitted it and you have admitted it.

Too bad all of the NC's can't admit it nor most of the IC members. If they would acknowledge that the VEKN is a monarchy, as you argue, and not a democracy, that would actually make things a lot clearer and simpler.

Why? It would be the same systems working in the same way with a new name. Unless you are going to suddenly gain control of the VEKN, sit down and draft a comprehensive constitution, enact that constitution AND have all of the membership agree to that constitution... I don't think you will either enlighten the NCs particularly, endear yourself to the IC or actually achieve particularly much.

Also I want to point out that here you're saying that since the VEKN is not a democracy, we should not expect too much transparency but in your other post you argue that the system already is transparent. Maybe you could please clarify the apparent contradiction.

Actually Eric, I think the system is stupidly obvious and simple. You seem to refuse to acknowledge (as Hugh, Pascal have) that the system is "Tell Pascal about it and he will make an informed decision". Where is the problem with its transparency? Pascal listens, thinks about it, maybe talks with some experienced and accomplished players and then makes a decision. Like any manager. Like any person given an office or role in a company, club or group. Like any Minister of Government. He has made a decision, it has caused a stir and you have demanded that you get the opportunity to dissect his thoughts on the subject. He refused you.

This is NOT a Democracy Eric. It doesn't have to behave like one. Your continual requests for it to be a transparent democracy are wasted.

If I was a paying member, with either an initial fee or an ongoing membership fee, then I would want very different things.

DeathInABottle wrote:

Reyda wrote:

here is the definition according to the merriam webster online.

1 : to talk in a noisy, excited, or declamatory manner
2 : to scold vehemently

Where is politeness involved in this definition ?

A rant is impolite because it's noisy or vehement, to use the language from that definition. Polite conversation is not noisy or vehement.

oh, if you say so, you must be a high authority in english language no ?
Now I feel this conversation will never end. Partly because you just realize I was spot-on about this

Reyda wrote:

Well, he wants explanation about bans, then that's cool. One or two post would have been ok. No need to be all over the place.

Maybe. You're making a good point here: it might be the case that continually posting requests and explanations and responding to everything that everyone says can be counterproductive, since it runs the risk of irritating people.

But still, you are being very, uselessely, time consumingly bossy for no reason other than "I did not use the words which would have pleased you" ; 4 pages earlier.
Well then, may i politely suggest that you go fuck yourself ?