[ASLML] "Mac Sez" and "Perry Sez"

[Sam Belcher]

> On Friday, November 28, 2003 7:31 AM, Mountain View Cottage
> [SMTP:mountainview at westelcom.com] wrote:
> > I will accept any posting labeled a
> > Perry Sez as "certified", and I use
> > the Perry Sez Site.

And Tate replies:

> This is in total contradiction of MMP's previously stated policy. Of
> course, we have had some contradictory statements by MMP folks. It was MMP
> that established the requirement that no Q&A/Errata is valid unless it
> appears in an "Official" MMP publication. I believe that they extended
> this
> to include their online Q&A site (although this "extension" itself has not
> appeared in any MMP publication...hmmm).

No, MMP never said a Q&A wasn't "valid" until published. They said it wasn't
"official". Check your dictionary, these are very different words. (I'm
pretty sure you didn't mean "valid", but I want to point it out. Un-official
Q&A are "valid" IMO.) 

> A TD is pretty much free to do as he pleases. He can use any source as
> desired. However, the TD must be able to back up any decision. Using some
> nefarious "Perry Sez" from who knows where isn't going to generate a lot
> of
> confidence in a TD decision. The idea is that the players need to feel
> that
> the tourney is at least fair.

Absolutely. A tourney director needs to publish - BEFORE the tourney - how
such rulings will be made. This can NOT change after the tourney begins.
Players need to respect the tourney director's decision. My standard answer
for anyone complaining about my decisions is that they can be TD next year.
(Really, I'm looking for a replacement.) 

> If half the players in the tourney have access to these "Perry Sez" but
> the
> other half do not...how can that possibly be fair. That was the whole
> basis
> (IMO) for the MMP rule on "Official" vs "Unofficial". The belief was that
> being in an "Official" publication would get the widest possible
> distribution and thus be as fair to the players as possible. Now we have
> slowly but surely descended into a morass of "who's on first and I don't
> know's on second" hodge-podge of Q&A. Who has access...who doesn't...what
> is "Official"...what isn't...does it have to be published...or doesn't
> it...what qualifies as published?!?!?! We even have a statement from Perry
> that all Q&A/Errata published before the ASLRBv2 are voided.

But that statement was never published in a journal. Was it? So you don't
accept it - and that means you still use all that V1 Q&A, right? 

> The underlying problem is a lack of control/discipline regarding
> Q&A/Errata. Because of this we have a lack of respect within the community
> for the "Perry Sez". This is demonstrated by the reactions in the recent
> FG
> DRM debate where one side has shown no hesitation what so ever for
> ignoring/despising the "Perry Sez".
> 
> Till some modicum of discipline is restored to the Q&A process sending in
> questions to settle debates becomes pointless. I mean really, if one side
> feels that any "Perry Sez" can simply be ignored what does the Q&A solve?!
> As the queen of soul says...it is all about _R_E_S_P_E_C_T_...people do
> not
> tend to ignore/despise that which they respect.
> 
> The solution really wouldn't be all that difficult. First, we need a well
> defined and detailed policy statement from MMP regarding what is/isn't
> "Official" and how they (MMP) want "Unofficial" Q&A handled (i.e.,
> published...what qualifies as published...status of "Perry Sez"...etc).
> Second, we need MMP to abide by their own standards. Third, TD's/Players
> also need to abide by the standards.

Dang it, I agree with all that stuff in the three paragraphs above. ;)

Sam "*amn you, Tate" Belcher :O)