Re: Jon, we need an Official Ruling! (was Re: SG2 newbie Q)

On 28-Feb-00 at 11:03, Michael Sarno (msarno@ptdprolog.net) wrote:
> 
> 
> Allan Goodall wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 27 Feb 2000 19:56:33 -0500, Michael Sarno
<msarno@ptdprolog.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >	 The "majority" throughout history doesn't have a great track
record
> > >of being correct. <g>  If the best argument you can offer is that
"most
> > >people say 'so-and-so,'" you probably need to think a bit longer on
the
> > >subject.
> >
> > Quite true. On the other hand, if you're looking for consensus in a
> > convention tournament situation, or just when running games at a
> > convention, or when you have disparate gaming groups coming
together.
> 
>     Right, but are you really going to go along with a ruling just
because
>     some 
> guy says that Jon says "so-and-so"?  You don't have this e-mail list
as a
> reference when you're at a convention.  You only have the text of the
> rules.  Jon just gave us his "official" interpretation and freely
admitted
> that the way he interprets the rules now is completely different from
the
> way he did when he wrote the rules.  So now you're requiring someone
who
> wants to play "official" SGII to follow this list, and every post that
Jon
> makes on it.	That just doesn't sound like a good idea.  SGII is SGII
plus
> any errata that is made available.  Jon's personal interpretations are
not
> part of SGII or errata.  If you're playing according to Jon latest
> interpretations, you are no more playing "official" SGII than if you
play
> with your own group's house rules. 

At the convention tournament whoever is running the tournament has the
final say.  If he says "Well, on the mailing list Jon said X and I am
going with that" you go with that.  If he says "I'm not on the mailing
list, I am running it as Y" then you go with that.

Roger