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

[Bruce Bakken]

Tate,

Hear, hear!  Nicely stated.

>
>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).
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
>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".
>

I want to go on record here as saying that the recent FG DRM issue is not my 
primary concern at this point.  As far as that goes, I've come to see that 
the "official" (<g>) way of doing it is a valid conclusion that one could 
reach without any reference to Perry, MMP, or the ASLML.

I don't agree with it, but the current way the question was "resolved" does 
not make me comfortable enough yet to embrace it.  I believe that if I sit 
down with any random player anywhere in the world, there's no way of telling 
*how* they would figure it.  And I feel there is no adequate way to support 
either view, the latest threads notwithstanding.  When it becomes Official, 
and there is sufficient errata to make it clear beyond reasonable doubt, 
I'll play it the way they say.

(That probably makes me a "heretic" to the Single Member camp, but who knows 
-- maybe the Single Member Theory will win out in the end.  You just never 
know...)

>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.
>

Thanks for this, Tate.  You are indeed a worth adversary.

Do you play as well as you debate?  <g>

Regards,
Bruce Bakken

>Later-
>
>Tater (One Mean Spud!)
>
>
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Share holiday photos without swamping your Inbox.  Get MSN Extra Storage 
now!  http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es