Forums of the Megaverse®

shadrak wrote:Let me get that for you...since you must have started playing after RUE and probably don't buy Rifter (and yes, while Rifter features "optional material", some articles are official and this one comes from the official FAQ from Rodney Scott at Palladium Books as in - at the time - canon and official:)

shadrak wrote:Do I add my P.S. damage bonus to M.D. melee weapon attacks? Do I add my P.S. damage bonus if I have supernatural strength?

The PS damage bonus is ALWAYS and SDC damage bonus and is not added to MD melee weapon attacks [emphasis mine].

HOWEVER [emphasis mine] if the character possesses SUPERNATURAL STRENGTH OR ROBOTIC STRENGTH, the normal punch damage, if MD, cn be added to the damage inflicted with a mega-damage melee weapon. Again, PS damage bonuses [my note, as in the extended scale +1 damage for points above 30 and 15 points at 30] do not apply to this.

For example, if you could do a 3D6 MD punch and were using a weapon that did 1D6 MD, you would inflict 4D6 MD.

shadrak wrote:Well, then, if it is not official, then the FAQs are not official...
It held the same status as the FAQs...

Killer Cyborg wrote:

shadrak wrote:Well, then, if it is not official, then the FAQs are not official...
It held the same status as the FAQs...

"The same status as the FAQs" is "just some guy's opinion, unless an official source is cited."

shadrak wrote:And I would refer you to page 294 of your oh-so-holy RUE...

Read it well...there is a sentence that reference you

Warning: If you can't discuss the subject without attacking others then don't post. Mack

shadrak wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

shadrak wrote:Well, then, if it is not official, then the FAQs are not official...
It held the same status as the FAQs...

"The same status as the FAQs" is "just some guy's opinion, unless an official source is cited."

And where is that statement sourced? LOL

shadrak wrote:

shadrak wrote:And I would refer you to page 294 of your oh-so-holy RUE...

Read it well...there is a sentence that reference you

Warning: If you can't discuss the subject without attacking others then don't post. Mack

I get you, Mack! I got to be more subtle like they are so you don't see it! Point taken! I will do well to learn from them and get my digs in a more passive-aggressive manner.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

shadrak wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

shadrak wrote:Well, then, if it is not official, then the FAQs are not official...
It held the same status as the FAQs...

"The same status as the FAQs" is "just some guy's opinion, unless an official source is cited."

And where is that statement sourced? LOL

Because it's a fan FAQ.

"This is a new version of the FanFaq. What it does is take the FanFaq and cut them down to just the questions and answers."

http://www.palladium-megaverse.com/questions/index.html

shadrak wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

shadrak wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

shadrak wrote:Well, then, if it is not official, then the FAQs are not official...
It held the same status as the FAQs...

"The same status as the FAQs" is "just some guy's opinion, unless an official source is cited."

And where is that statement sourced? LOL

Because it's a fan FAQ.

"This is a new version of the FanFaq. What it does is take the FanFaq and cut them down to just the questions and answers."

http://www.palladium-megaverse.com/questions/index.html

The FAQ written on palladium-books.com is a fan FAQ?

Killer Cyborg wrote:

shadrak wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

shadrak wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:
"The same status as the FAQs" is "just some guy's opinion, unless an official source is cited."

And where is that statement sourced? LOL

Because it's a fan FAQ.

"This is a new version of the FanFaq. What it does is take the FanFaq and cut them down to just the questions and answers."

http://www.palladium-megaverse.com/questions/index.html

The FAQ written on palladium-books.com is a fan FAQ?

The FAQ created on the Palladium Mailing List back in the day--run by fans--and eventually transplanted onto Palladium-Books.com, is a FanFaq.
That's what's known as "The Old FAQ."

The NEW FAQ is created here on the forums, when fans ask questions that are answered by fans, and then basically voted on, then put into the New FAQ.

So depending on which official Palladium.com FAQ you're talking about, the answer is either "yes" or "still yes."

shadrak wrote:Thank you!

Did any developers confirm this?

Also, why does the company continue to host the old FAQ?

It adds a lot of confusion especially if "FAN FAQ" (determined by consensus) becomes canon but employee answers do not.

Heck, why do they continue to host the old FAQ when it has contradictions between webpages and sometimes in an individual page?

Mack wrote:Canonical Status of the FAQ

shadrak wrote:In summary, the difference between "official" and "optional" source material is whether or not the writer was compensated.

shadrak wrote:In summary, the difference between "official" and "optional" source material is whether or not the writer was compensated.

eliakon wrote:

shadrak wrote:In summary, the difference between "official" and "optional" source material is whether or not the writer was compensated.

Actually the status is if the material was deemed official by the IP holder (in this case Palladium books via Kevin Sembida) or not.
That is what the word "Canon" means

Killer Cyborg wrote:

shadrak wrote:In summary, the difference between "official" and "optional" source material is whether or not the writer was compensated.

Au contraire!
I have known at least one writer whose Palladium book was officially published and canonical, but who hadn't been paid for their work for a period of at least several years. For all I know, they still haven't been paid.

shadrak wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

shadrak wrote:In summary, the difference between "official" and "optional" source material is whether or not the writer was compensated.

Au contraire!
I have known at least one writer whose Palladium book was officially published and canonical, but who hadn't been paid for their work for a period of at least several years. For all I know, they still haven't been paid.

That sucks for them!

I guess I should have said "work produced under contract/freelance"

Killer Cyborg wrote:

shadrak wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

shadrak wrote:In summary, the difference between "official" and "optional" source material is whether or not the writer was compensated.

Au contraire!
I have known at least one writer whose Palladium book was officially published and canonical, but who hadn't been paid for their work for a period of at least several years. For all I know, they still haven't been paid.

That sucks for them!

I guess I should have said "work produced under contract/freelance"

Regardless, there are optional rules in the canon books that IS official, presumably written by somebody who was paid or was supposed to be paid.
Not sure how that fits into your theory.

shadrak wrote:What I don't understand is why differentiate between "Canonical" and "Official" when Palladium can, and has, RETCONNED stuff in the past?

Why not just make Official the same as Canonical and, if it doesn't work out later, make the rules change and say it is no longer canonical?

Killer Cyborg wrote:

shadrak wrote:What I don't understand is why differentiate between "Canonical" and "Official" when Palladium can, and has, RETCONNED stuff in the past?

Why not just make Official the same as Canonical and, if it doesn't work out later, make the rules change and say it is no longer canonical?

Because "canonical' and "official" don't mean the same thing.
They're two different words, with different functions that only sometimes overlap.

Palladium, for example, has various official merchandise like bumper stickers and t-shirts.
This merchandise is NOT canonical, and couldn't really be, since it's not a general law, rule, principle, or criterion by which something is judged. It's not any kind of law or rule: it's just merchandise.
Saying that a "Got P.P.E.?" bumper sticker is official is both true and makes sense.
Saying that a "Got P.P.E.?" bumpers sticker is canonical is nonsense.

Khanibal wrote:I wonder if a discussion of M.A. above 30 would elicit such vituperation.

shadrak wrote:

eliakon wrote:

shadrak wrote:In summary, the difference between "official" and "optional" source material is whether or not the writer was compensated.

Actually the status is if the material was deemed official by the IP holder (in this case Palladium books via Kevin Sembida) or not.
That is what the word "Canon" means

So are you saying:

1. Killer Cyborg and Mack don't know what they are talking about or
2. That they are lying?

Killer Cyborg just said that official does not mean canon...Mack's link from 2000 agrees...

I am inclined to believe them unless you can show that they are ignorant or lying.

eliakon wrote:

shadrak wrote:

eliakon wrote:

shadrak wrote:In summary, the difference between "official" and "optional" source material is whether or not the writer was compensated.

Actually the status is if the material was deemed official by the IP holder (in this case Palladium books via Kevin Sembida) or not.
That is what the word "Canon" means

So are you saying:

1. Killer Cyborg and Mack don't know what they are talking about or
2. That they are lying?

Killer Cyborg just said that official does not mean canon...Mack's link from 2000 agrees...

I am inclined to believe them unless you can show that they are ignorant or lying.

No difference
The material in question was NOT official
It is not canon
The FAQ is not official, thus it is not Canon.
That's sort of what it all means
Unless Palladium says something is canon... its not

Mack wrote:I disagree with KC a bit. If it’s labeled Official, then it’s canon.

shadrak wrote:

Mack wrote:I disagree with KC a bit. If it’s labeled Official, then it’s canon.

Well, KC says canon and official are not the same, eliakon says that Palladium must clearly specify that something is canon for it to be canon...

So:

1. What canon source defines what 'canon' means?

2. Since most questions of canonicity are directed towards rules and gamesystems rather than histories and game environment, is "optional" source material canon? What if it is both "official" and "optional"?

shadrak wrote:

Mack wrote:I disagree with KC a bit. If it’s labeled Official, then it’s canon.

Well, KC says canon and official are not the same, eliakon says that Palladium must clearly specify that something is canon for it to be canon...

So:

1. What canon source defines what 'canon' means?

2. Since most questions of canonicity are directed towards rules and gamesystems rather than histories and game environment, is "optional" source material canon? What if it is both "official" and "optional"?

Prysus wrote:

shadrak wrote:And Eliakon (and I think KC) demand that answers to questions be canonical or they are invalid...

Greetings and Salutations. While I won't speak for them, from what I've seen you're confusing: "Believe only canon answers are valid in a discussion of the canon rules" with what you said. In general, I'm of the mindset that when providing house rules, they should be noted to avoid confusion (unless the OP is specifically asking for house rules). This helps avoid confusion. Even if you know your rules aren't official, someone reading them might think you're stating Rules As Written (RAW). This creates conflict, and much of what we're running into now.

So when someone asks a rules question, it often helps to start with a common ground, which is the RAW or clarify intent (such as listing that it's a house rule). Most of us have no issues with house rules. In fact, I'd say most of us agree that the game will not function smoothly without house rules.

shadrak wrote:With a discrepancy with regard to what is and what is not canon.

Actually, I'll agree with this. You'll see it used often on these boards, but many use it differently from others often causing confusion. For example ...

Killer Cyborg provided this definition earlier: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/canon

He referenced the first definition (1A). I've seen others use definition 2: "A collection or list of sacred books accepted as genuine" with the argument that it must be in a printed book to be canon (so an official answer online is null and void to that person).

Others tend to use it as another word for Official (such as): https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Canon

I'm sure there are more versions. There's various definitions as well as common usage that's not the actual definition but still commonly used. As a result, I actually try to avoid using the word at this point, because too many people use it to mean different things.

shadrak wrote:One demand is that source material, in order to be canon, must come from K.S. (all glory and honor due unto him most high) or from someone he has sanctioned to provide guidance.

First, being snarky to everyone doesn't encourage others to want to help.

Second, in general, main rules books, world books, sourcebooks, dimensions books, and the like tend to be considered official/canon (whether or not Kevin's name is on the front cover or not). Rifters are a bit of an odd ball. The articles within them are fan content. Fan fiction, in general, is not considered official or canon almost anywhere you go. This line gets blurred a bit more since this fan fiction is published in a Palladium product. To complicate matters more, some of the articles are written by staff and/or freelancers. However, since you mentioned having Rifter #11, I'll quote a section of that one for you (and you'll find the same quote, or very similar, in every Rifter that I can recall).

Page 5 wrote:"Optional and Unofficial Rules & Source Material"

This section then goes on to state how it is "not 'official' to the main games or world settings."

This tells us the default status of the Rifter, until told otherwise. Rifter #50 is a great example of a contrary, where most of the articles are "Official." This is generally listed in the Table of Contents, as well as the article itself.

The Q&A articles are a bit of a confusion though, and some people will go one way or the other on the matter. Most were written by Rodney Stott and Shawn Merrow. I believe at the time, they were interns. While I may respect them, I'm not sure how much weight I'd give to the opinion of an intern compared to actual staff members. If I had a legal question and walked into a law office, I wouldn't feel nearly as confident getting my legal advice from an intern as I would to an actual lawyer.

Later Q&A articles start mentioning they also had some input from Kevin, and/or his name showing up in the credits for the article. However, we're not given any clear indication of how much input he had on those or to which questions. However, instead of focusing on that aspect, I'll continue to focus on Rifter #11 for now.

Rifter #11, page 48 wrote:"We at Palladium Books receive a lot of questions about various books over the internet, and as a result we maintain a massive list of answers on our website, but if you do not have access to the net, getting answer can be a bit of a problem. That is why we have decided to do this column. We cannot present all our archives at one time, but we can bring you a selection of answers.
[snip]
... and will cover not only single games, but draw answers from all of Palladium's games.

So they start off identifying as Palladium Books (looking good for official), but then goes to tell us that this is from their archives on the internet (which has been addressed above as unofficial). Beyond that, we are told that it "draws answers from all of Palladium's games." This complicates the matter even more, because despite Palladium's Megaversal system, rules tend to change between the settings. Interestingly enough, whether or not Supernatural P.S. damage is added to Weapon damage is one of those that changes. For example, in Nightbane and HU2 (or, at the very least, the major super power Supernatural Strength from HU2) combines punch damage and weapon damage. PF2 and RUE are one or the other (whichever is greater).

Furthermore, in Best of the Rifter (which covers Rifters #1 through #32), there is a Rifter Index in the back of the book. One of the ways they index articles is by listing "Official" articles. The Rifter Q&A articles (such as the one from Rifter #11) are not on that list.

Hopefully some of that will help. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

Palladium Books Canon is set solely by Kevin Siembieda, either in person, or by his approval of published material.

shadrak wrote:And Eliakon (and I think KC) demand that answers to questions be canonical or they are invalid...

shadrak wrote:And let me quote Eliakon here:

Palladium Books Canon is set solely by Kevin Siembieda, either in person, or by his approval of published material.

If we accept that canon material and official material ARE the same (as Eliakon previously wrote) and we accept Eliakon's statement above as true, and we understand that SOME materials in Rifter are "official" (canon, in Eliakon's words) - as it must be since MOST are unofficial (if All were unofficial, then all would be unofficial...if most are unofficial then there must be exceptions)...

Then we have a situation in Rifter #11 where:

1. Authors identify themselves as employees of Palladium
2. Authors give answers to fan questions as employees of Palladium
3. Kevin Seimbeda reviewed said articles and answers and did not say that those answers were NOT from Palladium employees...

shadrak wrote:Then we have a situation where Kevin Seimbeda, through his approval of published material has established canon...

Using KC's definition of canon as general law, rule, principle, or criterion by which something is judged and understanding that common law (canon) is the foundation of American jurisprudence, and understanding that the doctrine of Respondeat Superior is an excepted doctrine of BOTH common law and civil law...

Then Rifter #11 answers were "official" using an understanding of American common law and were "canon" Eliakon's definition of what is canon until such a time a Kevin Siembieda or someone Kevin empowered declared them non-official or non-canon..

shadrak wrote:Palladium/Kevin had the opportunity to unequivicolly state that that FAQ was unofficial prior to its publication...the common understanding of an EMPLOYEE writing an article in a company publication with company review (unless otherwise stated) is that the employee is speaking on behalf of the company, especially when said employee says "WE HERE AT COMPANY X WANT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS"

shadrak wrote:If Johnson and Johnson published a document for doctors that was "NEWS AND VIEWS!!!" and said "some of these things in this document are official and some of these things are not official"...

And then a Johnson and Johnson employee wrote "Hey, I'm Bob Smith! We here at Johnson and Johnson have developed an FAQ for our clients so they know how to use our prescription drugs. We know many of you can't access that journal on our Johnson and Johnson website, so we wanted to reprint some of that guidance here--

Question: Should I mix my aspirin medicine with my Warfarin?
Answer: Well, aspirin and Warfarin are always taken separately. However, if you are prescribed a low dose aspirin, Warfarin should be taken AFTER your aspirin. For example: if you are prescribed a 50 milligrams of aspirin daily, you will want to take that first and wait at least 30 minutes until you take Warfarin.

In this situation...knowing that Johnson and Johnson published the "News and Views", would that section be considered official advice from Johnson and Johnson?

That question is rhetorical, of course, because it most certainly would.

shadrak wrote:And let me quote Eliakon here:

Palladium Books Canon is set solely by Kevin Siembieda, either in person, or by his approval of published material.

If we accept that canon material and official material ARE the same (as Eliakon previously wrote) and we accept Eliakon's statement above as true, and we understand that SOME materials in Rifter are "official" (canon, in Eliakon's words) - as it must be since MOST are unofficial (if All were unofficial, then all would be unofficial...if most are unofficial then there must be exceptions)...

Then we have a situation in Rifter #11 where:

1. Authors identify themselves as employees of Palladium
2. Authors give answers to fan questions as employees of Palladium
3. Kevin Seimbeda reviewed said articles and answers and did not say that those answers were NOT from Palladium employees...

Then we have a situation where Kevin Seimbeda, through his approval of published material has established canon...

Using KC's definition of canon as general law, rule, principle, or criterion by which something is judged and understanding that common law (canon) is the foundation of American jurisprudence, and understanding that the doctrine of Respondeat Superior is an excepted doctrine of BOTH common law and civil law...

eliakon wrote:

shadrak wrote:And let me quote Eliakon here:

Palladium Books Canon is set solely by Kevin Siembieda, either in person, or by his approval of published material.

If we accept that canon material and official material ARE the same (as Eliakon previously wrote) and we accept Eliakon's statement above as true, and we understand that SOME materials in Rifter are "official" (canon, in Eliakon's words) - as it must be since MOST are unofficial (if All were unofficial, then all would be unofficial...if most are unofficial then there must be exceptions)...

Then we have a situation in Rifter #11 where:

1. Authors identify themselves as employees of Palladium
2. Authors give answers to fan questions as employees of Palladium
3. Kevin Seimbeda reviewed said articles and answers and did not say that those answers were NOT from Palladium employees...

A nice strawman there though
Because Rifter #11 says that it is unofficial on page 5.
Unofficial Rifter is Unofficial.

shadrak wrote:Then we have a situation where Kevin Seimbeda, through his approval of published material has established canon...

Using KC's definition of canon as general law, rule, principle, or criterion by which something is judged and understanding that common law (canon) is the foundation of American jurisprudence, and understanding that the doctrine of Respondeat Superior is an excepted doctrine of BOTH common law and civil law...

Then Rifter #11 answers were "official" using an understanding of American common law and were "canon" Eliakon's definition of what is canon until such a time a Kevin Siembieda or someone Kevin empowered declared them non-official or non-canon..

That would be on page five where it says that the Rifter is unofficial.

shadrak wrote:Palladium/Kevin had the opportunity to unequivicolly state that that FAQ was unofficial prior to its publication...the common understanding of an EMPLOYEE writing an article in a company publication with company review (unless otherwise stated) is that the employee is speaking on behalf of the company, especially when said employee says "WE HERE AT COMPANY X WANT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS"

Incorrect
The entire magazine was stated to be unofficial on page 5.
Ergo, it would take a specific statement to the contrary to make any part of it official.

shadrak wrote:If Johnson and Johnson published a document for doctors that was "NEWS AND VIEWS!!!" and said "some of these things in this document are official and some of these things are not official"...

And then a Johnson and Johnson employee wrote "Hey, I'm Bob Smith! We here at Johnson and Johnson have developed an FAQ for our clients so they know how to use our prescription drugs. We know many of you can't access that journal on our Johnson and Johnson website, so we wanted to reprint some of that guidance here--

Question: Should I mix my aspirin medicine with my Warfarin?
Answer: Well, aspirin and Warfarin are always taken separately. However, if you are prescribed a low dose aspirin, Warfarin should be taken AFTER your aspirin. For example: if you are prescribed a 50 milligrams of aspirin daily, you will want to take that first and wait at least 30 minutes until you take Warfarin.

In this situation...knowing that Johnson and Johnson published the "News and Views", would that section be considered official advice from Johnson and Johnson?

That question is rhetorical, of course, because it most certainly would.

Again a lovely strawman. Because your holding up a different case and trying to generalize from one form of official status to another.
I will dissect this though.

If J&J had a forum though that stated clearly "This is an unofficial forum, the answers here do not represent the views of J&J nor have any legal or medical value beyond the status of the provider"... you know just like the Rifters do then it would not be official advice.
If the forum is listed as an official forum and that the views were official... then it would be official.
Simply because a format can contain official material does not mean that material in it is official.
The only way that material can be deemed official if it is being published in an otherwise unofficial source is for that material in and of itself to be listed as official.
So in this case?
The forum "news and views" would be unofficial
The status of Bob though hinges on the issue of if the FAQ that he is referencing is official (in this case the statement is that he is referencing an already published official FAQ.). To be considered official Bob would need to cite BOTH that the FAQ he is referencing is the official one, AND that he is making such statements in official capacity.
Otherwise he falls under the disclaimer "Nothing in this forum is official"
That is what disclaimers mean.
In this example they are explicitly referring to a FAQ that has been explicitly stated by Palladium to not be official. More they make no claims whatsoever that their answers are official, even though they know that they are being published in a format that is considered unofficial and even though Palladium Books had already demonstrated that they could, would, and did, mark official material in the Rifters with a specific notation that it was official.
As such their answers are of the same canonicity/officialness as the FAQ in reference. In this case...none.


No amount of 'intuitive' work will make it official.
Now a GM can rule that they feel it is official in so far as their games are concered... that is their perogitive.
But that does not make it an actual official rule.
As an example if you went to a tournament style convention and tried to cite this rule you would be informed that the rule is not official and therefor is not binding.

shadrak wrote:If J&J had official recommendations on the use of their drugs in a some newsletters and then allowed non-official recommendations to be published by individuals identified as employees responsible for giving official recommendations...

I think they would have a problem.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Look at it this way.
If there was a "Federal Law FAQ" that was written by non-lawyers with no particular qualifications and no particular understanding of Federal Law, and those people made many answers up entirely, and for some reason the Federal Government decided to post that FAQ on their website and/or publish it in a manual,
would that actually change the federal laws?

The answer is NO, it would not.

It would provide a legal defense for people who used the bogus answers in that FAQ, under the impression that they believed that the FAQ accurately represented the laws, but that's not the same as actually changing or creating laws, because Congress was NOT involved in the creation of the FAQ, and even if they were, the FAQ was not created through the same channels that are legally required to create or change Federal Law.

It would be a mess, and legitimate means for any number of lawsuits, but the Federal FanFaq would not represent, change, or create any Federal Laws.
It might be official, but it wouldn't be canon.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

shadrak wrote:If J&J had official recommendations on the use of their drugs in a some newsletters and then allowed non-official recommendations to be published by individuals identified as employees responsible for giving official recommendations...

I think they would have a problem.

Undoubtedly.
But those problems would be for the company, not for the actual rules of use, which would remain unaltered by any misrepresentation.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

shadrak wrote:And let me quote Eliakon here:

Palladium Books Canon is set solely by Kevin Siembieda, either in person, or by his approval of published material.

If we accept that canon material and official material ARE the same (as Eliakon previously wrote) and we accept Eliakon's statement above as true, and we understand that SOME materials in Rifter are "official" (canon, in Eliakon's words) - as it must be since MOST are unofficial (if All were unofficial, then all would be unofficial...if most are unofficial then there must be exceptions)...

Then we have a situation in Rifter #11 where:

1. Authors identify themselves as employees of Palladium
2. Authors give answers to fan questions as employees of Palladium
3. Kevin Seimbeda reviewed said articles and answers and did not say that those answers were NOT from Palladium employees...

Then we have a situation where Kevin Seimbeda, through his approval of published material has established canon...

Using KC's definition of canon as general law, rule, principle, or criterion by which something is judged and understanding that common law (canon) is the foundation of American jurisprudence, and understanding that the doctrine of Respondeat Superior is an excepted doctrine of BOTH common law and civil law...

We're not under common or civil law, though. We're talking about a RPG setting and system of rules.

If I understand the situation correctly, a Rifter article quoted rules from the FanFaq.
That's "official" in that a) the Rifter is a Palladium product, not a counterfeit or fan-fiction product, and b) the FanFaq is Palladium's "official" FAQ.
But neither of those things are canon, and the FanFaq is not (as a rule) canon, because it's not something by which the actual rules of the game may be accurately judged.

Look at it this way.
If there was a "Federal Law FAQ" that was written by non-lawyers with no particular qualifications and no particular understanding of Federal Law, and those people made many answers up entirely, and for some reason the Federal Government decided to post that FAQ on their website and/or publish it in a manual,
would that actually change the federal laws?

The answer is NO, it would not.

It would provide a legal defense for people who used the bogus answers in that FAQ, under the impression that they believed that the FAQ accurately represented the laws, but that's not the same as actually changing or creating laws, because Congress was NOT involved in the creation of the FAQ, and even if they were, the FAQ was not created through the same channels that are legally required to create or change Federal Law.

It would be a mess, and legitimate means for any number of lawsuits, but the Federal FanFaq would not represent, change, or create any Federal Laws.
It might be official, but it wouldn't be canon.

"we at Palladium Books receive a lot of questions about the various books over the Internet, and as a result we maintain a massive list of answers on our website, but if you do not have access to the net, getting to these answers can be a bit of a problem. That is why we have decided to do this column....

If you want to ask a question, feel free to send an e-mail to rstott@palladiumbooks.com, or visit the Palladium Books website at http://www.palladiumbooks.com.

shadrak wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

shadrak wrote:And let me quote Eliakon here:

Palladium Books Canon is set solely by Kevin Siembieda, either in person, or by his approval of published material.

If we accept that canon material and official material ARE the same (as Eliakon previously wrote) and we accept Eliakon's statement above as true, and we understand that SOME materials in Rifter are "official" (canon, in Eliakon's words) - as it must be since MOST are unofficial (if All were unofficial, then all would be unofficial...if most are unofficial then there must be exceptions)...

Then we have a situation in Rifter #11 where:

1. Authors identify themselves as employees of Palladium
2. Authors give answers to fan questions as employees of Palladium
3. Kevin Seimbeda reviewed said articles and answers and did not say that those answers were NOT from Palladium employees...

Then we have a situation where Kevin Seimbeda, through his approval of published material has established canon...

Using KC's definition of canon as general law, rule, principle, or criterion by which something is judged and understanding that common law (canon) is the foundation of American jurisprudence, and understanding that the doctrine of Respondeat Superior is an excepted doctrine of BOTH common law and civil law...

We're not under common or civil law, though. We're talking about a RPG setting and system of rules.

If I understand the situation correctly, a Rifter article quoted rules from the FanFaq.
That's "official" in that a) the Rifter is a Palladium product, not a counterfeit or fan-fiction product, and b) the FanFaq is Palladium's "official" FAQ.
But neither of those things are canon, and the FanFaq is not (as a rule) canon, because it's not something by which the actual rules of the game may be accurately judged.

Look at it this way.
If there was a "Federal Law FAQ" that was written by non-lawyers with no particular qualifications and no particular understanding of Federal Law, and those people made many answers up entirely, and for some reason the Federal Government decided to post that FAQ on their website and/or publish it in a manual,
would that actually change the federal laws?

The answer is NO, it would not.

It would provide a legal defense for people who used the bogus answers in that FAQ, under the impression that they believed that the FAQ accurately represented the laws, but that's not the same as actually changing or creating laws, because Congress was NOT involved in the creation of the FAQ, and even if they were, the FAQ was not created through the same channels that are legally required to create or change Federal Law.

It would be a mess, and legitimate means for any number of lawsuits, but the Federal FanFaq would not represent, change, or create any Federal Laws.
It might be official, but it wouldn't be canon.

Oh, and, to be clear...the article never says it is from the Fan FAQ...it says

"we at Palladium Books receive a lot of questions about the various books over the Internet, and as a result we maintain a massive list of answers on our website, but if you do not have access to the net, getting to these answers can be a bit of a problem. That is why we have decided to do this column....

If you want to ask a question, feel free to send an e-mail to rstott@palladiumbooks.com, or visit the Palladium Books website at http://www.palladiumbooks.com.

Heck, until you or someone else said the FAQ on the website was a Fan FAQ I didn't know that...my issue with that FAQ was the internal contradiction and the fact that it hadn't been updated to reflect new rules and materials so it just couldn't be trusted.