FAQ attack thread: Defend yourself here :)

[JamesAleman]

Often people will try to help out the gaming community by posting unofficial responses in the FAQ thread to save players some time, if they do not have time to wait for an official response.

Given this written medium, misunderstandings are rampant.

If you feel the need to “defend” yourself or clarify a statement, it has been suggested that a new thread would be the proper forum for such posts.

I am offering this thread as a suggested route for such replies.

[Ruanek]

Wouldn’t it work better to just keep everything in one thread?  I feel like having one thread discussion cross over to another thread is a bit strange.

[JamesAleman]

Re: AAG40 FAQ
« Reply #1827 on: August 10, 2011, 07:36:29 pm »
Reply with quoteQuote
James, this isn’t up for discussion or analysis.  Krieghund has stated unequivocally, that the damage on the minor would be 6 in this example.  So, it’s your #4.

EM, the official ruling (I know you love to point out that I’m not official, which I’m not) has already been posted on this thread, I am 99% certain.

The purpose of post 1826 on page 122 of the 1940 FAQ was to provide a foundation for players in need of a rapid decision a venue to refer to should they wish to form a group opinion. I stated I was uncertain of the real answer. Post 1836 page 123 Krieg provided the location of the rulebook where the answer was found.

As others have stated, “this isn’t up for discussion or analysis” can come off as harsh. I took the harsh option and chose not to respond in FAQ as I had made my effort to help. I realize it was not meant to be harsh. It seemed a result of frustration at the FAQ be cluttered in the opinion of others.

I shall endeavor to continue to help others if I believe I know the answer and I shall continue to state the response is unofficial on the off chance that someone needs a hasty reply.

I didn’t mean to start a protracted discussion in the FAQ.

Game on, Axis is a wonderful source of entertainment.

Thanks Larry, Keven and all those who help the axis community.

[JamesAleman]

@Ruanek:

Wouldn’t it work better to just keep everything in one thread?  I feel like having one thread discussion cross over to another thread is a bit strange.

It is strange, but it has a purpose. Some members reasonably perceive, side discussions in the FAQ thread, only clutter this helpful tool for new players or those with new questions.

I was aiming to be tactful and polite by forming this thread.

Simply ignore this thread as it has no bearing on the FAQ, but serves to reduce its “clutter”.

:-D

[Young Grasshopper]

I think there should be 2 sticky threads:

1. FAQ and rule clarifications (for direct answers from moderators to direct questions)
2. FAQ and rule discussions (for discussing, commenting or arguing direct answers)

[JimmyHat]

agreed, no matter how noble your purpose, any thread that starts in this forum is destined for the second page by day 3.  There’s just not enough random interest in the topic to keep it near the top for long, and once its forgotten there’s little chance of it being used again.

Of course the other problem is that people are still going to banter in the FAQ, the only real solution is a part time janitor who cleans up irrelevant posts after a month or so.

[gamerman01]

@Young:

I think there should be 2 sticky threads:

1. FAQ and rule clarifications (for direct answers from moderators to direct questions)
2. FAQ and rule discussions (for discussing, commenting or arguing direct answers)

I think this is a good idea.  Although, the “moderators” aren’t necessarily rules guys.  Especially Jenn  :-)
For the past year, I have been the only non-Krieghund person to regularly answer questions.  Krieg has enough faith in me to ask me to watch the FAQ more closely for him when he is away for a few days.  I’m just there to help get accurate answers out there faster.  Of course I’m wrong once in awhile, but it’s not very often.  You can see for yourself, if you read the whole FAQ thread.

James, if you think I am harsh, why didn’t you send me a private message to help clarify or settle the matter?  I was merely making an innocuous point, not trying to put anyone down.

I don’t know what it says on page 122 many months ago, but as you pointed out, the FAQ thread gets cluttered.  I was trying to help with that.

My point was simple.  If you don’t know the answer to a question, just ask.  Talking about all the possible answers and the reasons behind each one, only contributes to confusion.  No one wants confusion.

[Krieghund]

@gamerman01:

Krieg has enough faith in me to ask me to watch the FAQ more closely for him when he is away for a few days.  I’m just there to help get accurate answers out there faster.  Of course I’m wrong once in awhile, but it’s not very often.

All very true.  Thanks again for your efforts, gamerman!

While we’re on the subject, I’d also like to recognize kcdzim.  He has also been proven to have a good knowledge of the rules, and seldom gives an incorrect answer.

[kcdzim]

@Krieghund:

@gamerman01:

Krieg has enough faith in me to ask me to watch the FAQ more closely for him when he is away for a few days.  I’m just there to help get accurate answers out there faster.  Of course I’m wrong once in awhile, but it’s not very often.

All very true.  Thanks again for your efforts, gamerman!

While we’re on the subject, I’d also like to recognize kcdzim.  He has also been proven to have a good knowledge of the rules, and seldom gives an incorrect answer.

wow, didn’t expect that.  I’m honored.  I’ll try to keep my wtf-was-I-thinking percentage low.

[thatonekid]

one things for sure, we either need to start a new faq and just delete the old one, or have someone go through and clean it up……

[Rorschach]

@Young:

I think there should be 2 sticky threads:

1. FAQ and rule clarifications (for direct answers from moderators to direct questions)
2. FAQ and rule discussions (for discussing, commenting or arguing direct answers)

@thatonekid:

one things for sure, we either need to start a new faq and just delete the old one, or have someone go through and clean it up……

I have yet to understand the “FAQ” threads on this forum.  FAQ’s on all other forums are what the title implies (“Frequently Asked Questions”) where the FAQ’s are laid out in order and answered all up front.  If someone has a question, they go there first and see if anyone else asked the question.

Here, we have 120+ pages to search through first and MAYBE find a question (though unlikely, as I think people just post instead of searching as it’s a LOT easier) and then await an answer.

It boggles my mind.

[kcdzim]

@Rorschach:

@Young:

I think there should be 2 sticky threads:

1. FAQ and rule clarifications (for direct answers from moderators to direct questions)
2. FAQ and rule discussions (for discussing, commenting or arguing direct answers)

@thatonekid:

one things for sure, we either need to start a new faq and just delete the old one, or have someone go through and clean it up……

I have yet to understand the “FAQ” threads on this forum.  FAQ’s on all other forums are what the title implies (“Frequently Asked Questions”) where the FAQ’s are laid out in order and answered all up front.  If someone has a question, they go there first and see if anyone else asked the question.

Here, we have 120+ pages to search through first and MAYBE find a question (though unlikely, as I think people just post instead of searching as it’s a LOT easier) and then await an answer.

It boggles my mind.

Quite simply, it’s not a FAQ.  it’s a Q&A thread.  The only FAQs that really exist are those pinned to Official Errata, as that’s the only time questions are consolidated, and the Errata threads are usually locked and edited.

If someone wanted to start a locked FAQ thread and post only the questions and final ruling as they show up, they could.  But in the mean time, the Q&A thread works, as long as you accept the quirks of people insisting on Krieghund to make a final ruling, the occasional rule wonk completely blowing an interpretation, or repeats ad nauseum of certain questions showing up again and again (carriers and subs, movement through neutrals, “suicide” fighters, etc etc etc).  However, if it has been answered, anyone who posts “it’s been answered” should try their best to find that ruling.  Usually, when that comes up, I go to Krieg’s profile>recent postings> and start filtering back based on when I think he answered it.  Usually doesn’t take too long to find something, especially if it’s a question that gets asked alot.

[gamerman01]

@Rorschach:

I have yet to understand the “FAQ” threads on this forum.  FAQ’s on all other forums are what the title implies (“Frequently Asked Questions”) where the FAQ’s are laid out in order and answered all up front.  If someone has a question, they go there first and see if anyone else asked the question.

Fine.  The thread is not named correctly in your opinion then, because it’s not just question, answer, question, answer.  It’s an open forum for anyone to ask a question about the rules they’re not sure about.  It’s not like the FAQ documents that occasionally get put out by the developers (like Krieghund).  It’s more like an “ask your rules questions here” thread, which should be obvious from reading it.

Here, we have 120+ pages to search through first and MAYBE find a question (though unlikely, as I think people just post instead of searching as it’s a LOT easier) and then await an answer.

It boggles my mind.

If the site’s search function were working like it used to, people could find the answers with the search function, and we wouldn’t have over 120 pages.  If you have a question, just post it.  Everyone understands if it’s been asked 10 times before, because the search function is broken.

It makes a lot of sense to me.  Just don’t think of it as a place to find rules answers - it’s a place to ask them, and get an answer from a live person within minutes or hours.

[JimmyHat]

I think I agree this isn’t a FAQ.  A FAQ is a resource, like Rorcshach was saying.  If it were cleaned up I think it would actually get used, we could put a post up front with links to the pertinent answers in the thread.  This would mean first cleaning the thread.  Then organizing the questions so like questions are close to each other.  Then building a ‘contents’ page.  I think this might be too much work, although if we think about it after a thorough cleaning the FAQ is still going to be 60 pages or so, enough that building a contents page would be quite a hassle.

Its too bad really, I think we’ve got some real gems in the FAQ, plus some really good clarifications of obscure rules, wish there was someway to make it more user friendly.

[kcdzim]

@JimmyHat:

Its too bad really, I think we’ve got some real gems in the FAQ, plus some really good clarifications of obscure rules, wish there was someway to make it more user friendly.

I don’t see this as “too bad”.  A FAQ doesn’t lend itself to asking questions - it’s a compilation of questions already asked, and you still need a Q&A thread to generate the questions, OR you need to constantly update the very first post.  you wouldn’t want to just delete all the subsequent pages or posts - one would just need to update the front page.  I’m sure if you wanted, you could start a list of all the questions now answered, send it to Gamerman, and he could update the front post.

Or, If you want to make a FAQ just make one.  Get mod permissions so that only you can edit and post in it, and track questions that have been asked.  The “FAQ” thread is a Q&A thread.  It’s misnamed, sure, but that’s not really the point.  It was always designed for users to post questions and get answers.

[Krieghund]

@JimmyHat:

Its too bad really, I think we’ve got some real gems in the FAQ, plus some really good clarifications of obscure rules, wish there was someway to make it more user friendly.

I’ve included a great deal of this material in the Official Rules Clarifications.

[gamerman01]

I will get a mod to change the name of the thread.