In the last week, I have received a deluge of private ruling-seeking messages for all manner of matches, involving all manner of stakes. With both the League Circuit in full swing and a contingent of new players dipping their toes in the game, this is understandable. I am, for all intents, the rules manager, and thus the natural first person to ask.
However!
Putting aside any logistical concerns I may have with this (my being a bottleneck point of failure in the rules engine is not a desirable feature), I and the other mods would like to address the rather icky implications of answering rules questions privately. These being, in no particular order and not being exhaustive:
So, with all of that said, I'd like to open the floor to discussion as to what would be an agreeable solution. What bounds do most players find acceptable when editing a post? What safeguards would players like against having their plans spilled? How could players seeking help with the rules in competitive matches do so without undermining the match result?
And if it can at all be helped, I'd rather solve this particular problem without returning to the era of making a needlessly hostile empty reply "to lock opponents' orders" within minutes of a player's post. Those who know, know.
However!
Putting aside any logistical concerns I may have with this (my being a bottleneck point of failure in the rules engine is not a desirable feature), I and the other mods would like to address the rather icky implications of answering rules questions privately. These being, in no particular order and not being exhaustive:
Kingmaking - These questions often concern game-deciding interactions for a player looking to secure a win. Early in a match, players seem to go for safer, less niche lines of play rather than attempt something needing clarification. It's only in a match's climactic moments that players have to resort to sketchier actions that might require mechanical explanation. That is to say, answering these rulings questions often feels like being asked to select the winner manually.
Exclusivity - The rules interaction that was unclear to the asker remains unclear to all other players even after a rules question is answered privately. If the interaction was clear or intuitive, it wouldn't have prompted a question, after all. Not only does answering such a question arm a player with rules knowledge that all other players lack, it also paints us moderators into a corner for answering. If we make changes to the rules to clarify the interaction, the asker's carefully-laid plan could be revealed and put to waste. If we don't make those changes right away, we risk the ruling being lost in a deluge of maintenance work until the same battle situation comes up once more. (The value of protecting a player's plan is open to debate and will be touched on later.)
Instability - Players' faith in the rules working as written is shaken just a crumb more every time a ruling comes out of a private conversation that contradicts that player's understanding of the rules. If the rules of the game are subject to negotiation, the game as a whole just doesn't really work. Instead, every battle devolves into a debate exercise.
Waiting and Scheduling - If matches hang until we're able to respond with a ruling, then it puts an onus on us to be available around the clock, lest players wait beyond their DQ times for our reply. In the worst cases, matches might be extended by players with the dreaded "Sorry, I can't order until I get an answer" post; which is both of dubious legality and is horrid for the play experience.
So that's the "why" of this thread: I and the other moderators would be delighted to find a better solution for players seeking rules clarity, that works better than "DM Lou whether or not I can abuse my opponent's substitution on a technicality and put them unrecoverably behind." That said, I think it's important to share the reasons I think players resort to private questions:- To conceal their plans. This is bluntly obvious. Players don't want to tip their opponent off to their gameplan. This segues cleanly into the next reason:
- There are no clear rules for editing orders. As a result, a player's opponent can see that player's question, and edit their orders to counter that stated plan. Worse, depending on the strictness of your point of view, they could edit their orders or their substitutions to remove the offending illegality when it's brought up in a question, robbing the asker of a potential advantage.
- There are no clear rules for rewinding, either. This makes it harder on players affected by rules snags, who may have ordered based on a rules assumption that proved to be incorrect, but reasonable. No clear line is drawn as to what constitutes a foul worthy of a re-do, as opposed to a simple player error that they have to hold.
So, with all of that said, I'd like to open the floor to discussion as to what would be an agreeable solution. What bounds do most players find acceptable when editing a post? What safeguards would players like against having their plans spilled? How could players seeking help with the rules in competitive matches do so without undermining the match result?
And if it can at all be helped, I'd rather solve this particular problem without returning to the era of making a needlessly hostile empty reply "to lock opponents' orders" within minutes of a player's post. Those who know, know.
Last edited: