TOPIC: Do You Want to Play a Game? >:D

Raven,

I have to thanks you once again and I'm sorry it been confusing as to what may be to what's not. It just water under bridge at this point. Some choose to you what they want to see, but you see it for it is as nonprejudge as it go. Which is a great quality to have and you are always my favorite forumite and true dungeoneer by far. I love your insight and what you have to said to standard all to live by. It just amaze me that I can't begin to describe your clairvoyance with words and/or by your present that is so underestimate by what you saying to you. It always my pleasure to know you, even as acquaintance.

With regards,

-Eversuede-

How about that weather/local sporting team?

Druegar wrote: This is a sincere question—I genuinely want to know. What part of this is an attack? Please be honest.

Druegar wrote: The Medallion of Nobility is not a token a character equips. That's why it was classified as slotless. If you will sleep better at night thinking it's a neck slot item, be my guest. In the end, it makes no difference if it's slotted or slotless because the token has no benefit other than bragging rights.

Garrison wrote: The Medallion of Nobility is hard to find in the token database

Why do you say it's hard to find? I just did a search for "medallion of nobility" and it popped right up.

darkangel866 wrote: Remember Tokendb is not official

According to whom? What is your criteria for being "official"?

I discussed the slottedness of the Medallion of Nobility with Jeff tonight. He confirmed it's a slotless item.

Also for the record, the TDb is officially official .

Druegar, I understand the reason for your question, this doesn't seem like an attack at all to me, it is just an honest misunderstanding over what the official sources of token information are. For the record, I've always enjoyed your responses, and I'm sure at some point sooner rather than later I'll ask a question which will get me a formal introduction to the TDb

Ian, we could certainly use more rain here, how about you? The Colts last game was a disappointment, and the upcoming schedule is really tough, so hopefully we can raise our game and at least split them. But the Colts West Coast are doing great, I have hopes that Manning can get another MVP as well as Superbowl win #2

Eversuede wrote: I ask you to bridge the gap between network, so that the public aren't make into being fool of themselves when asking for help

I have never intentionally made someone look like a fool for asking a question. If I see a question I can answer, I will do so and point to my source—typically the TDb, a published guide (pdf), or forum post. I do this so it doesn't look like hearsay—that's all. I have no desire to humiliate anyone. If you can point to a post of mine where I made someone look like a fool, please do so because I would like to correct that behavior in myself and apologize to that person.

Eversuede wrote: if I ask you what is your criteria to have a heart? You will probable be offend by it.

I'm not offended, but I am confused. How am I being heartless?

Eversuede wrote: My best intention is to have resolve this tension between us by where you did not notice. ... Just give you better idea in how you want to be treated than the way you had treated me.

Eversuede, I am genuinely baffled by this. How/when have I treated you poorly? What is it I have said to you that has offended you? I feel like every time we have a forum conversation you accuse me of being a jerk and every time I am left wondering what I said that caused you to feel that way. I find this especially puzzling because when you and I have conversed face to face at Gen Con, the interactions have been pleasant. Did I totally misread those?

If you would prefer to take this to PMs, that's fine by me.

Druegar,


I should PM you the rest about what seem puzzle to you to make clear. No, you are not jerk or seem like a jerk to me at all or even accuse you being a jerk. Like I said before that my intention is to held you in high regards in what role work for True Dungeon is all. like Raven said that she like your no-nonsense of response, but when you response with What is your criteria of official to Darkangel866. Then I may and other may view as being sarcasm when knowing full well that you are the official. That kind of gester does carry over when you having Darkangel866 consider for volunteer, but that another matter. Then I could make to be the fool because the majority of the availible source out there I thought were correct, but wasn't until you said otherwise. Seen how it's look like right now in I mean and not what I said. It like True Dungeon as a whole doesn't represent the sum of it part because it not in unison with each other. Just saying!!

-Eversuede-

Eversuede wrote: No, you are not jerk or seem like a jerk to me at all or even accuse you being a jerk.

When a person accuses me of making someone look like a fool, that fits my definition of them saying I'm being a jerk.

Eversuede wrote: when you response with What is your criteria of official to Darkangel866. Then I may and other may view as being sarcasm

It would seem you and I have different definitions of what constitutes sarcasm.

The question I posed to Darkangel was sincere. In my mind, the TDb was/is official due to the circumstances of its creation and ongoing maintenance. I realize most people don't know what goes on "behind the curtain" of the TDb nor would I expect them to. Therefore, I wanted to know what criteria would need to be met for him to consider it official. I thought it was a straightforward question.

Is the fact that I don't pepper my posts with niceties what makes me seem sarcastic to you? That's just not my style. I'd much rather get to the meat of the topic and move on to the next thing.

I don't mean to interject, but my personal take on it is this:

If given conflicting information which source should we consider the 'gospell' until corrected/clarified?

Having multiple offical sources is great provided they are in absolute agreement.

In this particular case the tokenDB had more 'clarity' than the other sources but didn't directly agree with them because they listed it in the neck slot section. As the token guide is the eldest of the token resources I think most people will refer to it first. I personally only refer to it but that is purely because the tokenDB is blocked by my firewall at work.

Clearly they are both offical sources, but the token guide implies its a neck item even though it never says it must be worn there.

If I didn't choose by seniority I would go with majority and say 2 out of 3 sources list it as a neck item and would assume the odd man out was incorrect.

I think that if we notice a discrepancy, we do what we've always done: ask for clarification here. I think the only reason this became an issue was that there was a mystery prize on the line, and it is pretty counter-intuitive. Not sure why a token with zero in-game effect needs a slot... It's a little like calling a Golden Ticket a Melee Main Hand token (that's what you use to turn it in, right?)

valetutto wrote: If given conflicting information which source should we consider the 'gospell' until corrected/clarified?

Excellent question!

Simple Answer: ask
Either PM Dave, Jeff, or me or make a post of the forum pointing out the discrepancy. If you need to know during Gen Con, have someone with a radio contact Dave, Jeff, or me.

Detailed Answer: In theory, the three primary sources of token information ( Token Guide , Quick Token Reference , and TDb ) should be in agreement. That said, there are at least two factors that can contribute to them being out of synch.

1. They're made by humans. Humans make mistakes. Point the mistakes out and we'll correct them.
2. A token/rule gets changed or a clarification is issued. When this happens, the first thing to be updated will be the TDb. The second thing will probably be the QTR because it's smaller and can be updated with greater ease. However, after the next year's tokens are released, older version of the QTR are generally not updated. So if there's a conflict between a non-current QTR and the TDb, always go with the TDb. Due to its enormous size, the Token Guide is updated less frequently.

Yeah, I’ve seen a couple of times in the long ago past (forget specifics) where the Token Database was different than the current rule/practice for a token, i.e. conflicted with what I knew to be current rules. I then would ask the question (in the forums somewhere) about it. I would be directed to the Token Database as the rule, and I would think to myself “By whose authority is the token database (a non-True Dungeon site) become the authoritive source, especially when it was changing current rules/thinking of a token?” I had the same thoughts of the “My Character’s and Parties” vs. the “non-site Spreadsheet” when it comes to stats on the characters. But, nowadays I use the Token Database quite extensively due to its search capabilities and the fact that everything needed seems to be there in one spot.

Yes, there are three places where token information can be found. The token Guide (TG), Token online database (TDB), and the Quick Token Reference (QTR).

Drugar, Jeff, and I work, as best we can to clarify rulings and keep the three sources in sync. Drugar maintains the TDB and QTR. Given that the QTR and TDB are easier to maintain, Drugar is able to be much more agile than I can with updating those sources as rulings are passed down regarding changes to the tokens and how they are used. I maintain the TG, and update it a few times a year. It is much more difficult to update the guide and re-render it for publishing, so I try to collect several changes and release them at once.

By its nature, the guide started out as a first person narrative (i.e., sages sharing knowledge), so I have been a bit more verbose in the token descriptions than what is used in the TDB and QTR. But Drugar helps me keep the meanings and interpretations as close as we can. In some cases words creep in that then have different meaning, such as calling something an ancient artifact in the description which then confuses things when Jeff goes and makes an artifact class. (I have changed those for the next version, BTW).

If you find things in conflict, let us know and we will try our best to fix them. But I would submit that Drugar, as I, would weigh questions posed on the forum (or at the event) and answer the best he/we can, or ask Jeff for clarification or a "from the top" ruling, if we feel it is needed. But Drugar has as much implied "authority" on the issue as I have (or had), so I feel comfortable saying that if he makes a judgment, it is out of careful consideration, and while Jeff always has the ultimate veto power, he is comfortable letting us serve as his proxy.

Dave

Donald Rients wrote: By whose authority is the token database (a non-True Dungeon site)

Though I understand why one might assume it's a "non-True Dungeon" site, a whois query on tokendb.com reveals a familiar name as its owner.