LogFAQs > #880126424

I mean, yea, this is exactly how it should work tbh.

Rulings are not a negotiation between the player and the admin, so there's no need for a back and forth.

This is where we disagree - there actually is value in the back and forth because the player can help dig up precedents or otherwise present the admin with a dissenting voice that allows him to straighten out his thoughts and issue a better ruling. The idea isn't that the player tries to persuade the admin to rule his way through charisma (we absolutely know players might try to do that and we keep an eye out for that, we're not stupid or naive), but rather that it allows the admin to consider all possible sides of a ruling - which with a small admin team always comes in handy. For example, since the players are always looking for ways to break the game, they can point out how a certain piece of wording leads to an unintended interaction, and why they want it to work that way - and the admin can determine if this is an exploit (and thus should be shot down with a ruling), a bug (and thus is to be lived with, really), or a feature (in which case the player probably should be congratulated for finding a cheap trick to eke out wins with). Multiple erratas have come as a result of conversations of this sort, which is always healthy for the game, so axing that doesn't offer much benefit.
---

Shine on, you crazy diamond.