Soltis: Your argument doesn't hold water. The DT rules page clearly lays out the penalized cards. The ELO rules page, not that you need to go there given the unambiguity of teh DT page, also distinguishes cards "your deck cannot contain" and "characters currently banned by staff."

There was some ambiguity before the penalized characters were expressly listed in the DT section of the rules, but even that wasn't _too_ confusing since it was repeatedly explained by admins and players alike in the weekly threads re: the temporary bans.

Soltis, if he were recieving as many penalties as you say, how did he end up 6th? Oh that's right, because you must be wrong. Now stop spamming, if you care so much about the way the rules are set out, or have the time to attempt to find loopholes in them, then go find something else to do. I bet he replies with another excessively long comment.

Come on. I was talking about exact wording. It shouldn't have to have been explained over and over by admins and players in Q+A threads, because that's a flag that the rules were and are confusing. There is ambiguity, Fast. It's not that the permanents aren't listed- because they are- as you point out-, it's that they're listed in such a way that their exact, English wording makes another listing in ELO fall under that same scope.

Here's a great example. If you look at a fast food sign, and the sign says "Cheeseburgers, $1.00" (not that it would in today's market) and then you look at the next item on the sign and it says "Hamburger meal, $.80", you know exactly what that means, right? A single cheeseburger is $1, and a single hamburger is $.80. If, however, I look at the exact wording used, I can rightfully walk into that store and say "I want the entire meal for "$.80" because that is what the scope of that second list item is referring to. You can argue that the first list item sets precedence for the others and that it's just SO OBVIOUS, but I can argue that the wording is ambiguous.

That's the parallel I want to draw here. Wording. Exact, "god you're such a jerk" wording. If someone did nothing but read BOTH pages, they will arrive at that conclusion based on logic. "Staff banned. Oh, Staff banned. Yup."

Frog: I also outline 3 other things he could do to improve his game, which are solid enough. Could you please stay on topic? You haven't contributed to the thread.

Now, see, Fast has helped a lot with this exact comment here:
"There was some ambiguity before the penalized characters were expressly listed in the DT section of the rules"

We know, thanks to our experience with the game, that the statement is true. The "penalized" characters are listed.

However, if you had 0 experience with the game, you would go by what the rules say, right? And the rules say "Staff banned", not "currently penalized." You see, because you KNOW the intended effect of the listed ruling, you're only seeing the 'end effect' stated there. You're seeing a "list of penalizations". But someone without this knowledge is seeing "staff banned."

When that person then goes to the ELO page and sees an addendum labeled "temporary staff ban," this is what they can deduce from that. They can deduce that the DT page has a listing of all permanents, and that the temporaries- because they do change every week- are simply listed in the ELO page because changing the list every week is unnecessary (which is true!). They then link the two "staff banned" parts, and arrive at the conclusion that temporary bans are penalized the same way because they are both "staff bans."

Then they play a game and don't lose points. They look it up and then they learn. They look at the DT page and go "Oh." Then they always see the end effect like you guys do.

My concern is for those without that foreknowledge. A rules page should never have any ambiguity, ever, no matter how tiny or exact.

The problem with your logic is, those without foreknowledge will most likely not own any of the permanently-banned characters as they are all quite expensive, so the penalties will not affect them. Though you're right, ambiguity in a rules page is a bad idea...

It's a French game. The pages are translated by a third party contractor. You should e-mail support If you have suggestions re: changes to the verbiage on a given page. I've gotten a lot of typos fixed and many rules clarified. I think this one is obvious from the dt rules page, but you should open a ticket instead of being longwinded here if you disagree.

This game's origin is French? Huh. Come to think of it, I never really gave thought to where this game came from, I just kind of thought some... individual on the internet spawned it at some point and it just caught on. I wonder if there are French commercials for it? Haven't seen any U.S. ones. >.>

Well, I suppose you're right there. Should probably have been like "hey, that's confusing... I'ma go put in the ticket now" instead of like "hey... I'm gonna hijack this thread now that it's basically done with." Whoopsie daisy. My bad, yo. Well, at least I tried to help the op... originally.., and we've managed to avoid total conflagration which is more than a few threads around here can say, I'll tell ya that much.

As for me, I'm actually a game programmer, so when I see something like that in a rules page it absolutely bugs me to no end. Nothing irks me more than the very idea that a game is being played wrong because the controls or setting weren't conveyed correctly- it's like come on. Come to think of it, if the translators play UR too (which I sure hope they do if they want to get the translations right in-context) that's something that would be very easy to miss for that exact reason from before. I have gotten typos corrected in other online games too, but they went through forums and I suppose I misinterpreted the "mods approve your posts" deal here in that fashion. Lemme go throw a ticket at them.

I think the issue here is that they just recently added temporary staff bans and the wording remained the same from before that...
Sorry if someone mentioned that already, too much to read in detail.