This forum is called “Rules Discussion”, but today I learned that we shouldn't “discuss” rules here: Kim Warren closed the thread I opened while my question wasn't even answered yet. So I had to write some PMs to Kim and others who were so kind to participate. That would have been much easier when the thread wasn't closed, but that's not what I want to talk about here.

It's about the name of the forum, “Rules Discussion”.

If it really were a forum for discussing rules, then a) rules questions about sets that are not released yet should be allowed; and b) people should be able to give their opinion on the matter, whether they're right or wrong. That would probably not be of much use for the questioner who was looking for a definite answer, but people enjoying discussions like these would benefit from it.

If instead this forum is for answering rules questions, then it should have a different name (like “Rules Questions and Answers”). I could accept a policy I never heard of before that questions on future cards aren't even allowed before the FAQ (although I still don't see a need for closing threads to enforce this and patronize others who'd like to be helpful by keeping them from answering).

I plead the second, because when I turn to the forum I am seeking help, mostly with a “tricky” question, and I want a definite answer.

What do you think?

I apologize, we haven't yet finalized the structure and naming of these forums - it's a work in progress.

Also, I'm sorry that we haven't already attached the protocol guide to these forums; since I've been moderating the mailing list(s) since 2004, and reading them even longer, I assume that everyone knows that entire history… my bad.

In summary: Rules questions - i.e., those are that are based around how the rules work in specific cases - are to be answered, with a single, Official answer. This prevents incorrect or misleading answers from being found later by someone, and taken as though it were official.

If there are aspects of the rules that aren't understood, then discussion is in order. However, we've noticed that it's extremely rare to have productive discussions about rules; that's based on those dozen+ years of rules list observation. After all, most rules “discussions” end up with “because Wizards R&D liked it that way” or something similarly uninteresting. :)

Mario, your question was very much a rules question, of the sort where we'd provide an official answer. The reasons that we won't answer that specific question have been provided; I'm sorry if you feel that you need an answer before the FAQ. If we had separate forums for discussion or Q&A, and this question were posted under discussion, our moderators would move it to the Q&A and provide an answer - or, as in this example, explain why not … and in either case, close the thread.

Again, my apologies for the unfinished product which is this set of Forums. We're getting there, slowly but surely - and I appreciate your patience in the meanwhile.

d:^D

Oh, oops - forgot to include my regular signature line, to identify myself:

Thanks! – Scott Marshall, Magic Judge NetRep, L5, Denver
Seen our wiki? <http://wiki.internationalmagicjudges.net>
Looking for something (judge-related)? <http://www.internationalmagicjudges.net/>