[ZeConster]

No one's suggesting you pause the game and look for an official ruling during the session: however, putting GM's call above official ruling implies something different than you think it does - namely, that if a GM goes "that's a -8", and then someone say "no, I read an official ruling about this, and it's actually a -6", the GM will go "well I said it's -8 ".

Which in the context of the session is appropriate.

I disagree. I think the priority levels should be as follows:

If it first comes up during a session:
Tier One - Houserule
Tier Two - someone knows the official ruling, and can quote it
Tier Three - GM's call
Tier Four - someone "knows" the official ruling
Tier Five - group consensus
Tier Six - search for an official ruling
Tier Seven - spitball it
Tier Seven - search for an online consensus

Long term:
Tier One - Houserule
Tier Two - Official ruling
Tier Three - Freelancer ruling, GM's call
Tier Four - informed group consensus (check Tiers Five and Six, then decide for yourselves)
Tier Five - properly argumented online consensus
Tier Six - online consensus

[Crunch]

The problem is that tier two can't be confirmed in session without stopping the action to look up the ruling, Being able to quote something doesn't mean you've quoted it correctly, nor does it mean that you've correctly identified the most current official ruling.

9 times out of 10 the best thing for keeping the game moving is to either just let it go and talk to the GM afterward, or to inform the GM respectfully of what you believe the correct ruling is, and then move on using the GMs new ruling, which may or may not change.

Take as a for instance how many people are reporting Aaron's posts as "official rulings" when they are explicitly the well informed thoughts of a freelancer involved in the creation process, but in no way official.

[ZeConster]

The problem is that tier two can't be confirmed in session without stopping the action to look up the ruling, Being able to quote something doesn't mean you've quoted it correctly, nor does it mean that you've correctly identified the most current official ruling.

That is a matter of trust - if you don't trust what your players are saying, you're dealing with Tier Four, not Tier Two (and either need to work on your trust issues, or have untrustworthy players).

[Michael Chandra]

If I as player go "That's X, I know for sure" and the GM refuses to listen, then depending on the tone he takes he's just lost a player. If, on the other hand, I go "I think it's X but not entirely sure" and the GM goes "I'll use Y and we'll check later", that's fine.

[Crunch]

The problem is that tier two can't be confirmed in session without stopping the action to look up the ruling, Being able to quote something doesn't mean you've quoted it correctly, nor does it mean that you've correctly identified the most current official ruling.

That is a matter of trust - if you don't trust what your players are saying, you're dealing with Tier Four, not Tier Two (and either need to work on your trust issues, or have untrustworthy players).

It's not actually an issue of trust so much as an issue of recognizing that people are fallable and that forums can be confusing places. If you think your GM is wrong during the session is the wrong place to deal with it. Stopping the game to depate rules isn't fun for anyone and shouldn't happen.

slipped.

What if the player is wrong? Should he be in a position where he's "lost a GM." The GM should certainly be conscious of tone, but "I'll use Y and we'll check later" should always be an acceptable answer regardless of the facts of the matter.

[ZeConster]

I never said anything about debating things with your GM: if the player thinks the player might be wrong, it's Tier Four, and Tier Three overrules it. No debate.
If, however, you're obviously dealing with Tier Two, and the GM stubbornly shuts them down anyway, it'll be a lot more harmful for the group dynamic than if the GM decides to trust the player and it turns out the player is wrong later. The whole "one tier will turn vicious, while the other will be friendly" thing can easily swing the other way. And I, for one, would not feel comfortable in a group where saying "actually, I think it's X, because..." isn't allowed out of fear that it'll lead to a debate. If the GM is wrong, you should be allowed to tell them, especially if their mistake might have a serious effect on the outcome.

Honestly, it's a full-scale spectrum, with the ideal place in the middle, but your posts sound like you think the vast majority of events will fall on the rules-lawyering-players side, while I fear the GM-is-a-dictator side.

[Crunch]

So what you're saying is that the player is sure he's right, and the GM is sure he's right the GM is always wrong?

[ZeConster]

So what you're saying is that the player is sure he's right, and the GM is sure he's right the GM is always wrong?

Only in your mind - in the real world I said that a GM who doesn't allow any criticism during the game even if he's completely wrong isn't a GM I'd want to play with.

[Crunch]

9 times out of 10 the best thing for keeping the game moving is to either just let it go and talk to the GM afterward, or to inform the GM respectfully of what you believe the correct ruling is, and then move on using the GMs new ruling, which may or may not change.

Which would be actually a completely different thing than I said here Ze.

[ZeConster]

9 times out of 10 the best thing for keeping the game moving is to either just let it go and talk to the GM afterward, or to inform the GM respectfully of what you believe the correct ruling is, and then move on using the GMs new ruling, which may or may not change.

Which would be actually a completely different thing than I said here Ze.

I apologize, I must have missed that sentence. I now await your apology for completely misreading me despite my attempts to show my opinion is far more nuanced than you seem to think it is.

[Crunch]

I apologize if I misinterpreted you, but you have to admit that looking at what I actually wrote and your responses to it it wasn't an unreasonable reading.

[Michael Chandra]

If you think your GM is wrong during the session is the wrong place to deal with it.

It's not a matter of the GM being wrong as the GM apparently refusing to trust the player. If I state future errata will include that damaging a lynchpin destroys the preparation, and the GM goes "you shouldn't listen to idle gossip, we're not doing that", he's pissing me off. If I say Dwarves are supposed to have thermographic vision and he scoffs at me, I walk. And if the errata are out, I got a section from them memorized and the GM refuses to trust a single word I say, I walk. If the GM doesn't trust me and acts condescending, I do not see any reason to stay at that table.

[ZeConster]

I apologize if I misinterpreted you, but you have to admit that looking at what I actually wrote and your responses to it it wasn't an unreasonable reading.

I will do no such thing. I have made EVERY effort short of putting an explicit disclaimer in each post to make it clear that that was NOT what I was saying, and quite frankly, I am offended that you would think otherwise.

[Crunch]

If you think your GM is wrong during the session is the wrong place to deal with it.

It's not a matter of the GM being wrong as the GM apparently refusing to believe the player. If I state future errata will include that damaging a lynchpin destroys the preparation, and the GM goes "you shouldn't listen to idle gossip, we're not doing that", he's pissing me off. If I say Dwarves are supposed to have thermographic vision and he scoffs at me, I walk. And if the errata are out, I got a section from them memorized and the GM refuses to trust a single word I say, I walk. If the GM doesn't trust me and acts condescending, I do not see any reason to stay at that table.

First of all, why are you assuming that the GM is being a jerk. Either the GM or the Player could be a jerk, but the issue of not being a jerk is completely separate from the issue of whether you should be able to overrule the GM at the table during a game he's running.

If you say "future errata will include that damaging a lynchpin destroys the preparation" and the GM says "ok let me look into that after the session and we'll see what rule we decide to go with in future sessions" is that going to piss you off?

[Crunch]

I apologize if I misinterpreted you, but you have to admit that looking at what I actually wrote and your responses to it it wasn't an unreasonable reading.

I will do no such thing. I have made EVERY effort short of putting an explicit disclaimer in each post to make it clear that that was NOT what I was saying, and quite frankly, I am offended that you would think otherwise.

I'm sorry if I offended you Ze, it wasn't my intention.

So what is your opinion of what should happen if both the player and the GM think their reading is correct (and they have equal supporting materials at the table).