Forum:E-Mailed Rulings from Konami (2)

In this thread we were discussing how to handle the E-mail Rulings that we receive from Konami and most importantly those who make a previous Official Ruling outdated.

The fear of adding them to the Rulings' Main Pages as separate Official Rulings was that they may be fake since they are not posted by Konami but by the people that received them and on unofficial sites. So we decided to add the "Out of Date" template and mention the change in the talk Page.

But then UDE's Rulings were still considered as "official". Now they are not so it isn't correct to have the "Out of Date" template for something unofficial that got reversed.

Right now we add a new category ("Out of Date") under the "Previously Official Rulings" mentioning there the outdated Ruling and right next to it a note mentioning the new Ruling we received from the email. Example!

Should we leave them like that or should we mention them a different way? Thoughts?

Something else we can do is to mention them as separate Rulings but under a template saying that those Rulings aren't confirmed by Konami so they may be fake, or something!

ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 11:33, September 5, 2011 (UTC)

For emailed rulings; I agreed with Deus Ex Machina that they are worth mentioning. However, unlike him, I think it's best to give them their own box (like the Previously Official Rulings template)

And at that, maybe there should be an option in the box, one for definite trustworthy sources and one for unconfirmed sources.

(on another note; has there ever been incorrect answers given by the emails?)

-Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 11:44, September 5, 2011 (UTC)

Yes it happened! Months ago someone posted an incorrect Ruling about Spirit of the Six Samurai vs simultaneous destruction, which later confirmed as fake by a Konami's employee. Not only that but he also had a fake picture of the Rulings from his Email's inbox.

I agree though to mention them as separate Rulings under a template. But I'm not sure about the 2 options in the box. The trustworthy sources should only be those who are confirmed by Konami, not from those who are confirmed by a trust-able person. Similar to what TwoTailedFox was saying about the Judge Program Forum Rulings. They are considered unconfirmed even if a trust-able judge who can see them say that they are real.

ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 16:14, September 5, 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, I remember that one now that you've pointed it out.

Fair enough, option to do that isn't necessary.

Also, I don't think I mentioned this last time, but if we use templates, we could keep track of what cards have those kind of rulings easily; which should be useful some time.

Might as well start on the template so we can see what it would look like. Based on the {{Previously Official Rulings}}. Feel free to change and add stuff to it; like a sample warning note, email and reference.

Add this to the page:

==E-Mailed Rulings==
{{E-Mailed Rulings |Konami =
* <E-Mailed question and answer go here.>
}}

Creates:

• <E-Mailed question and answer go here.>

==References==

-Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 05:58, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

This looks nice Falzar. Lets see if someone else wants to say something and then we apply this. ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 06:59, September 8, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but we can do the planning beforehand while we wait for more response. Like that sample Message and the example Q and A I mentioned above. -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 07:07, September 8, 2011 (UTC)

---

Ok since nobody disagrees we apply this template.

We can make it like the Judge Program Rulings template (with Note):

E-mail Rulings

• <E-Mailed Ruling(s) go here.>

Notes

ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 20:55, September 10, 2011 (UTC)