I *absolutely* think that in fact it *is* poor sportsmanship to 'make someone suffer the consequences of their mistakes' when those mistakes pertain to a GAME, but then that's just me seeing X Wing as something enjoyable rather than a way of life.

Congratulations. You've just become the posterboy for the type of militant casual that is the real poor sport that so many of us have issues with.

Your insistence that there is only one correct way to play, intolerance for another point of view, and need to foist your opinion on others is the exact thing I've been talking about this whole thread.

I hope everyone sees that is people like him that are the real issue and the true poor sport here. They are what Sithborg has dubbed the militant casual who use Fly Casual as way to WAAC.

Thanks, do I get a trophy? Or a cookie? Everyone always tells me that the Dark Side has cookies, but nobody will give me one.

Look, I overstated in my last post. Or rather, I didn't clarify enough.

If my opponent, mid-game, messes up a manouver so he lands on a rock or accidentally places a red manouver on the dial when he's stressed then yes, he suffers the consequnces of his mistake and that's part of the game.

If, on turn one, with his ship set up at the far right edge of the board, he flips to reveal a three turn right when he *clearly* meant 3 turn left, then I would say that it's fairer *in my opinion* to let him use the three turn left that it's clear he meant. If it happens more than once that he flips a dial and says 'oh I meant the other thing' then tough - once is a mistake, more than that is just taking liberties *in my opinion*

It isn't about 'insisting there is only one correct way to play', it's about my own personal opinion as to what constitutes sportsmanship, and you disagree. That's cool. I'm not going to accuse you of 'foisting your opinion on me' even though in a way you are by accusing me of being this 'poster boy' for whatever. You have an opinion, I have an opinion, this is a forum in which opinions can be shared, and everyone's entitled to make of them all what they will. The OP asked whether he was right or wrong to do what he did. I offered my opinion in response. I didn't realise that we weren't allowed to post anything but the gospel truth on these boards or I wouldn't have bothered.

But sure, encourage everyone to see me as 'the issue' and the 'poor sport'. That seems fair and reasonable. It is, after all, excatly what I did to you....oh. wait....

OP did absolutely the right thing

No he did not, he did what he wanted to do. There is no right and wrong involved in this. There is no single correct answer.

It is not poor sportsmanship to make someone to suffer the consequences of their mistakes.

It is posts like this one, that uses loaded language and is by its very nature judgemental in tone that I have issues with.

Diddums. I will just have to try and live with that burden I guess.

I *absolutely* think that in fact it *is* poor sportsmanship to 'make someone suffer the consequences of their mistakes' when those mistakes pertain to a GAME, but then that's just me seeing X Wing as something enjoyable rather than a way of life.

Why, if it's a tournament game? Not making mistakes (or making less than your opponent) is just another skill a player's arsenal. By allwing your opponent to fix his mistakes you are choosing not to employ this skill, in other words going easy on them.

Since when has not going easy on your opponent in a compeyition become poor sportsmanship?

As per my other reply, I overstated the case and lost sight of my point. Turn one, first manouver, edge of board, clear mistake as to direction of turn, I would say *in my opinion* it is more sporting to allow for the mistake than to insist that it's left as is. I would just feel easier in myself. After that, yes I would say that the player lives with whatever mistakes they make (and I make plenty myself)

I think people are confusing me expressing an opinion on sportsmanship with me attempting to make a universal declaration of the definition of sportsmanship. Everyone will view stuff differently. The OP asked what people thought, I responded. Why this makes me the 'poster boy for militant casuals' is beyond me, but there you go.

Anyways, talking to the T/O afterwards it turned out the guy was not only local but a regular at the store. Apparently in a previous tourney, in the first round of the first game of the day, this guy's opponent revealed his Firespray dial to show a 2 turn in the wrong direction which would immediately take him off the board. This was clearly an error, and the opponent therefore asked the guy if he minded using what he'd obviously meant to do (the same turn in the other direction) and the guy said 'no, you have to fly him off the board.'

Turns out that word got around pretty quickly, and suddenly every time for the next few weeks that this guy turned up for a game, everyone was suddenly 'busy' or 'had to go'.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. There could have been a *ton* of other reasons people started avoiding this guy -- several of them are mentioned as happening in the tournament -- other than not letting someone off the hook for picking the wrong maneuver. And it could have been the way he handled it rather than the fact it happened at all.

Yes, there could have been. Except that the T/O had spoken to several people who ha all told him that the incident had become well-known and had left a bad taste, which was why they were all avoiding him.

And sure, it was 100% as much about *how* he went about it as it was about what he had done. First turn of a first round game? Like it would have made ALL the difference to his day?

So for the record Player A made a critical mistake. Player A then asked to break the rules to change it.(it was not offered he specifically asked to break the rules) Player B declined. Then Player A spread word about Player B and the rest of the comunity black listed Player B. Who in this scenario is showing poor sportsmanship.

Does anyone else find it funny that the "poor sports" have never said one negative thing about the others but all the so called "good sports" players all hurl insults and negative comments.

You hit the nail square on the head. I don't know the whole story, but it sounded like the guy was unpleasant for a few reasons, however if he was blacklisted because he made the guy stick to his plotted maneuver then the only real poor sports are the ones who blacklisted the dude.

The guy was not pleasant to play. That said, he was perfectly polite, and he didn't (as far as I can remember now) cheat when I played him, though he did noticeably start to slow play in the semi final game the moment it became clear that he was losing, and by slow play I mean SLOOOOOOOOOOOOW. The main issue was trying to concentrate with him shouting at his child and stopping to tell him off or take things off him every minute or so - I don't like to manouver or declare actions/attacks while my opponent isn't looking, and that made the game very 'bitty' with all the commotion. The story itself was just sort of adding to the impression I and others who were there that day had of him. I'll say again - first turn of first round game, OBVIOUS mistake in the dial (and we've all done it) he could have been nicer about it. Probably there were other reasons why people started avoiding him, but I don't think that helped.

As to why it's only ever the 'good sports' who moan, you raise an interesting point. I would imagine part of it is normal moaning at one's own 'poor luck' or 'bad dice' etc - i.e. being unhappy that you have lost. However, the worst game I have ever had to play (which I did lose) was against someone who was just truly obnoxious on every level. He cheated at least twice in the game (first time I called him on it, second time I just wanted the game to be over so I ignored it), he argued with EVERY opponent on rules the entire tournament, and he was very in your face and patronising about stuff, such as loudly declaring to an opponent, for the whole shop to hear, that 'it's not my responsibility to remidn you of your Rebel Captive so if you forget about it, I won't tell you' (this opponent then went on to beat him and win the tourney, while he came fifth). The game very nearly went to time, and it was genuinely the most miserable I have ever felt playing X Wing (and I freely admit I get frustrated when I lose and can't see what I'm doing wrong, though I am always careful to reassure my opponent that my frustration is at myself and my dice and not them). My last game of the tourney was against a friend who is an expert at the game and who pummeled me in about fifteen minutes, with me not landing a single shot on anything. And it was fun, because I like the guy and he wasn't being obnoxious about it all. So it isn't just about sour grapes when losing, it's simply about the experience you have, and I guess that's entirely subjective. There is in fact no point in trying to 'define' sportsmanship - it's all dependent on the perosnal opinion and experience of the individual.

I would allow my opponent to fix it, in fact my friend did this to me in a game with his two IG-2000. He flew one right off the board first turn with the wrong 2 bank. I would allow an opponent to fix this in a tournament also. I play this game to have fun, I go to tournaments to meet new people and have fun where there are prizes and everyone is bringing their best game. I want my opponent to have fun and it wouldn't be fun for me to win in that fashion. People have other concerns in life like families, work and school that all take precedence; my opponent might be exhausted and I appreciate them coming out to play a game so I am not going to bust their balls for a mistake at turn 0... After turn 0 I will not let them take late actions, change dials, apply abilities after triggers have passed and I don't expect them to allow me to either. You wouldn't be wrong to fly them off the board, the rules allow for it, but I doubt that I would want to play with that person if I had other options.

But why is Turn 1 somehow this magical land where mistakes we normally wouldn't allow to slide are given a pass? What makes "Oh you clearly didn't mean to do that" more valid on Turn 1 than Turn 4?

Does anyone else find it funny that the "poor sports" have never said one negative thing about the others but all the so called "good sports" players all hurl insults and negative comments.

Seriously, there's been plenty of defensive histrionic horse**** in this thread from people on both sides of the debate.

It doesn't matter whether you'd enforce the rules or give your opponent a take-back. Both of those courses are defensible in good faith, and most people wouldn't always do one or the other in every possible situation. The Very Soul Of The Game doesn't hang in the balance over the One True Answer to this question. What matters is that whatever you decide, don't be a **** about it. And that on the other side you shouldn't expect your opponent to let you break the rules of the game because you ****ed up.

tl;dr - TasteTheRainbow had this **** right back on Page 1.

But why is Turn 1 somehow this magical land where mistakes we normally wouldn't allow to slide are given a pass? What makes "Oh you clearly didn't mean to do that" more valid on Turn 1 than Turn 4?

It isn't. If my opponent forgot to cloak his Phantom or take his action in Turn 1 then tough. If he reveals his first dial and it flies half his points off the board because he has clearly put the wrong direction of manouver down, I'd be inlclined to let it slide.

The original poster is the one who lost and then regretted giving his opponent a chance to defeat him, now he knows the rule, let him decide how he will enforce it. There is no right or wrong decision, pick one and move on.

There is not a right or wrong, but in this case, his opponent would have defeated him anyway if he didn't make the error (unless TS suffered huge concentration problems, because of regretting his decision). The topicstarter's decision of allowing is opponent to correct his mistake, didn't cause topic starter to lose the game, but rather denied himself an easy victory and risk losing. TS didn't give his opponent a chance to defeat him, because each opponent has that at the start of the game, TS merely allowed him to keep a chance on defeating him instead of minimizing itl

He didn't lose because he allowed his opponent to bend/break-the-rules, as some say it, but he lost because he faced a opponent who was better or had a better squadron.

Exactly, they even explicitly put in text to allow you to complete a legal maneuver if you put down the wrong dial for the wrong ship.

You're being kinda selective for your rules here.

If you put down the wrong dial and happen to pick a legal maneuver, it is naturally still a legal maneuver. However there are other cases which also show FFG's intent.

If you forget to place a dial, the opponent gets to pick the maneuver it will perform. The same goes if the maneuver isn't legal. Finally if the dial isn't clearly on a single maneuver the opponent gets to pick which of the two possibles ones is performed.

So clearly the advantage in a mistake with dials will go to the opponent, unless the mistake resulted in a legal maneuver in the first place.

Really, if you want a black and white game with clear cut rules your playing the wrong game, play chess.

The rule in this question is completely black and white with no gray area. You perform the maneuver on the dial if it's legal. The only time you wouldn't is if it's not a legal maneuver in the first place. In which case the opponent can pick the worst possible maneuver for your ship.

There is a difference between a unintended "goof" and breaking the rules.

This isn't a unintended goof, no one is claiming people accidentally allows the maneuver to be changed after the fact. There is nothing in the rules that allow either side to change a legal maneuver once it's been revealed. It's quite clear that per the rules, you must perform it, regardless of how good or bad it is for you.

Changing the dial after the fact is only allowed in the case where the maneuver isn't legal, and if both sides allow a legal maneuver to be changed then both sides are in fact breaking the rules. It really is as simple as that.

Does anyone else find it funny that the "poor sports" have never said one negative thing about the others but all the so called "good sports" players all hurl insults and negative comments.

That's an overstatement so massive it can be seen from space. NOBODY who'd enforce the orientation of the ship as placed has said a single negative thing? ALL people who'd give a takeback have been hurling insults? Come on now. #NotAllCasuals, dude.

Seriously, there's been plenty of defensive histrionic horse**** in this thread from people on both sides of the debate.

It doesn't matter whether you'd enforce the rules or give your opponent a take-back. Both of those courses are defensible in good faith, and most people wouldn't always do one or the other in every possible situation. The Very Soul Of The Game doesn't hang in the balance over the One True Answer to this question. What matters is that whatever you decide, don't be a **** about it. And that on the other side you shouldn't expect your opponent to let you break the rules of the game because you ****ed up.

tl;dr - TasteTheRainbow had this **** right back on Page 1.

I'm sorry for over-exaggerating. The point I was trying to make, was that there are 2 sides.

Camp 1 - It was a clear mistake and you should let him change it, if you make him follow the rules you're a bad sport.

Camp 2 - It was a mistake, but it's the players mistake and the rules say he flies off the board. However if Player B wants to be super nice and let him do the intended move, that's up up to Player B.

Camp 2 has never said "you always follow the rules, there's never any leeway". Camp 2 allows for either action to be taken, and you're not a bad person if you make the player follow the rules.

Camp 1 on the other hand - and it has been several (sorry not all, and i'm not going back through 15 pages to sort out who, Force Kin was one), that clearly with not provocation say "The "RIGHT" thing to do is let them change it and you're a bad sport, sh*tty human and horrible person(may not be quoting exactly just paraphrasing) if you make them fly off the board"

Any negativity from Camp 2 only came about because they were called bad sports and sh*tty people by a few in Camp 1.

Isn't it long past time for this discussion to be put to bed? It's going nowhere, we're just seeing the same arguments circle over and over.

I say we take off and nuke the thread from the off topic forum. It's the only way to be sure.

Isn't it long past time for this discussion to be put to bed? It's going nowhere, we're just seeing the same arguments circle over and over.

I say we take off and nuke the thread from the off topic forum. It's the only way to be sure.

I agree, in general it boils down to the player who decides wether or not he lets his opponent correct his mistake and his decision will be influenced by various factors (type of tournament, stakes of tournament, amount of sympathy the player has for his opponent, the desire to play a challenging game vs a handicapped and frustrated opponent, the need to win this round, the willingness to risk losing).

Just to add one last thing, there have been at least two occasions where my dial was loose, and after selecting my maneuver, a different maneuver showed when revealed. Had to suck it up though, and this wasn't even player error.

This is one of the main reasons why I'm looking forward to the new plastic dials.

Let say in one of the Top Cut games at Worlds, with a TO/Judge watching, a player reveals a dial set in a direction that will fly them off the board. It is a clear mistake and his opponent offers to allow him to change the maneuver.

In that situation I am really unsure if the TO would allow the maneuver to be changed. The reason being is there is nothing in the rules that would allow the modification to the maneuver, unlike the Missed Opportunities clause. Even with the opponents approval it is still an illegal act. So I wonder can/would/could a TO allow a player to allow his opponent to violate the rules, or would the TO be obligated to let the legal play stand.

I really don't know the answer, though I have personally seen in the past FFG TOs force a legal play to stand even when the opponent were going to allow it to be changed. With the reasoning being is that they can't allow a player to make an illegal play even with the opponents permission.

With the reasoning being is that they can't allow a player to make an illegal play even with the opponents permission.

If it were me, that's the reasoning I'd use to force both players to accept the maneuver as revealed. If for no other reason than, because everyone at the tournament really needs to be playing by the same rules.

The missed opportunity clause already gives players a fair amount of leeway in letting someone fix a mistake. But when you let someone break the rules, you now have effectively tainted that game in relationship to all the others.

I'm very much of the opinion that the TO/Judge has to enforce the rules as written, to the best of their ability in every situation. That is the only truly fair way to do it.

Isn't it long past time for this discussion to be put to bed?

Then stop replying to it, bumping it to the top. .

Does anyone else find it funny that the "poor sports" have never said one negative thing about the others but all the so called "good sports" players all hurl insults and negative comments.

That's an overstatement so massive it can be seen from space. NOBODY who'd enforce the orientation of the ship as placed has said a single negative thing? ALL people who'd give a takeback have been hurling insults? Come on now. #NotAllCasuals, dude.

Seriously, there's been plenty of defensive histrionic horse**** in this thread from people on both sides of the debate.

It doesn't matter whether you'd enforce the rules or give your opponent a take-back. Both of those courses are defensible in good faith, and most people wouldn't always do one or the other in every possible situation. The Very Soul Of The Game doesn't hang in the balance over the One True Answer to this question. What matters is that whatever you decide, don't be a **** about it. And that on the other side you shouldn't expect your opponent to let you break the rules of the game because you ****ed up.

tl;dr - TasteTheRainbow had this **** right back on Page 1.

I'm sorry for over-exaggerating. The point I was trying to make, was that there are 2 sides.

Camp 1 - It was a clear mistake and you should let him change it, if you make him follow the rules you're a bad sport.

Camp 2 - It was a mistake, but it's the players mistake and the rules say he flies off the board. However if Player B wants to be super nice and let him do the intended move, that's up up to Player B.

Camp 2 has never said "you always follow the rules, there's never any leeway". Camp 2 allows for either action to be taken, and you're not a bad person if you make the player follow the rules.

Camp 1 on the other hand - and it has been several (sorry not all, and i'm not going back through 15 pages to sort out who, Force Kin was one), that clearly with not provocation say "The "RIGHT" thing to do is let them change it and you're a bad sport, sh*tty human and horrible person(may not be quoting exactly just paraphrasing) if you make them fly off the board"

Any negativity from Camp 2 only came about because they were called bad sports and sh*tty people by a few in Camp 1.

Oh the irony for "Camp 2", literally one post before you-

" There is nothing in the rules that allow either side to change a legal maneuver once it's been revealed. It's quite clear that per the rules, you must perform it, regardless of how good or bad it is for you.

Changing the dial after the fact is only allowed in the case where the maneuver isn't legal, and if both sides allow a legal maneuver to be changed then both sides are in fact breaking the rules. It really is as simple as that."

My point is simply consider the situation.

Following rules rigidly is sometime not what is best especially in this type of game. (Example- Rebel captive thread- you forgot rebel captive (Ignoring mal intent) and no stress is on the mat and the next ship fired it is a missed opportunity and stress per the rules cannot be retroactively placed if the next ship fired. However, most agree if it is forgotten, you will do what is best to correct it without affecting the game state.) I am sure some might have problems reconciling "following the rules" and doing "what is right" in a black and white world.

Let say in one of the Top Cut games at Worlds, with a TO/Judge watching, a player reveals a dial set in a direction that will fly them off the board. It is a clear mistake and his opponent offers to allow him to change the maneuver.

In that situation I am really unsure if the TO would allow the maneuver to be changed. The reason being is there is nothing in the rules that would allow the modification to the maneuver, unlike the Missed Opportunities clause. Even with the opponents approval it is still an illegal act. So I wonder can/would/could a TO allow a player to allow his opponent to violate the rules, or would the TO be obligated to let the legal play stand.

I really don't know the answer, though I have personally seen in the past FFG TOs force a legal play to stand even when the opponent were going to allow it to be changed. With the reasoning being is that they can't allow a player to make an illegal play even with the opponents permission.

My understanding though I could be wrong was TOs needed to be passive and are not a referee. Only if they are asked a question, resolve a dispute, judge on a rule or ambiguity but they not an active participant to call something out. If they are asked to rule, the ship must then complete the maneuver.

Does anyone else find it funny that the "poor sports" have never said one negative thing about the others but all the so called "good sports" players all hurl insults and negative comments.

That's an overstatement so massive it can be seen from space. NOBODY who'd enforce the orientation of the ship as placed has said a single negative thing? ALL people who'd give a takeback have been hurling insults? Come on now. #NotAllCasuals, dude.

Seriously, there's been plenty of defensive histrionic horse**** in this thread from people on both sides of the debate.

It doesn't matter whether you'd enforce the rules or give your opponent a take-back. Both of those courses are defensible in good faith, and most people wouldn't always do one or the other in every possible situation. The Very Soul Of The Game doesn't hang in the balance over the One True Answer to this question. What matters is that whatever you decide, don't be a **** about it. And that on the other side you shouldn't expect your opponent to let you break the rules of the game because you ****ed up.

tl;dr - TasteTheRainbow had this **** right back on Page 1.

I'm sorry for over-exaggerating. The point I was trying to make, was that there are 2 sides.

Camp 1 - It was a clear mistake and you should let him change it, if you make him follow the rules you're a bad sport.

Camp 2 - It was a mistake, but it's the players mistake and the rules say he flies off the board. However if Player B wants to be super nice and let him do the intended move, that's up up to Player B.

Camp 2 has never said "you always follow the rules, there's never any leeway". Camp 2 allows for either action to be taken, and you're not a bad person if you make the player follow the rules.

Camp 1 on the other hand - and it has been several (sorry not all, and i'm not going back through 15 pages to sort out who, Force Kin was one), that clearly with not provocation say "The "RIGHT" thing to do is let them change it and you're a bad sport, sh*tty human and horrible person(may not be quoting exactly just paraphrasing) if you make them fly off the board"

Any negativity from Camp 2 only came about because they were called bad sports and sh*tty people by a few in Camp 1.

Oh the irony for "Camp 2", literally one post before you-

" There is nothing in the rules that allow either side to change a legal maneuver once it's been revealed. It's quite clear that per the rules, you must perform it, regardless of how good or bad it is for you.

Changing the dial after the fact is only allowed in the case where the maneuver isn't legal, and if both sides allow a legal maneuver to be changed then both sides are in fact breaking the rules. It really is as simple as that."

My point is simply consider the situation.

Following rules rigidly is sometime not what is best especially in this type of game. (Example- Rebel captive thread- you forgot rebel captive (Ignoring mal intent) and no stress is on the mat and the next ship fired it is a missed opportunity and stress per the rules cannot be retroactively placed if the next ship fired. However, most agree if it is forgotten, you will do what is best to correct it without affecting the game state.) I am sure some might have problems reconciling "following the rules" and doing "what is right" in a black and white world.

The Rebel Captive example isn't a fair comparison. Rebel Captive is not an optional part of the game, as it's something that's supposed to occur when the conditions are met.

Players actually choose how/where their ships are placed, and unless ion'ed, also choose how their ships are going to maneuver in the next round. Both of these are key elements of this game, so when the time comes to make these decisions the players need to plan accordingly and pay attention to what they are doing.

Let say in one of the Top Cut games at Worlds, with a TO/Judge watching, a player reveals a dial set in a direction that will fly them off the board. It is a clear mistake and his opponent offers to allow him to change the maneuver.

In that situation I am really unsure if the TO would allow the maneuver to be changed. The reason being is there is nothing in the rules that would allow the modification to the maneuver, unlike the Missed Opportunities clause. Even with the opponents approval it is still an illegal act. So I wonder can/would/could a TO allow a player to allow his opponent to violate the rules, or would the TO be obligated to let the legal play stand.

I really don't know the answer, though I have personally seen in the past FFG TOs force a legal play to stand even when the opponent were going to allow it to be changed. With the reasoning being is that they can't allow a player to make an illegal play even with the opponents permission.

My understanding though I could be wrong was TOs needed to be passive and are not a referee. Only if they are asked a question, resolve a dispute, judge on a rule or ambiguity but they not an active participant to call something out. If they are asked to rule, the ship must then complete the maneuver.

Following rules rigidly is sometime not what is best especially in this type of game.

You are wrong, because it is unfair for someone to pick and chose when to follow the rules and when not to. That's why cheating is considered a bad thing.

If both sides agree to play by a different set of rules, that is up to them. They can also set aside a given rule if they so wish. But they are then no longer playing by the rules as written.

If you are in a tournament, it is vital that everyone plays by the same set of rules, that is the only way to have a truly fair tournament.

The Rebel Captive example is flawed... Because that involves a situation where both players have failed to notice something until it is too late to correct. For that to apply would mean that the active player took a left turn when the dial said right, and the other person didn't notice it. But if by some weird chance he remembered and could prove it. The fix would be fairly simple, the offending player would either lose that ship, or be DQ'ed for that game.

If a TO forces the correction of any mistake he happens to see, he has obliged himself to watch every game for the full duration, if he wants to rule in a consistent manner.

Not really, he just needs to consistently step in when he or she happens to see something. It really does need to be an all or nothing, either they will do it every time, or never do it. But as long as they do it the same all the time then they are being consistent.

The TO's primary responsibility after all is to make sure the tournament runs smoothly and fairly, and making sure everyone plays by the same rules is part of that.

There's also the fact that the TO does need to get involved in the case of collusion, and doing what the OP mentioned could be considered to be just that.

Oh the irony for "Camp 2", literally one post before you-

" There is nothing in the rules that allow either side to change a legal maneuver once it's been revealed. It's quite clear that per the rules, you must perform it, regardless of how good or bad it is for you.

Changing the dial after the fact is only allowed in the case where the maneuver isn't legal, and if both sides allow a legal maneuver to be changed then both sides are in fact breaking the rules. It really is as simple as that."

My point is simply consider the situation.

Following rules rigidly is sometime not what is best especially in this type of game. (Example- Rebel captive thread- you forgot rebel captive (Ignoring mal intent) and no stress is on the mat and the next ship fired it is a missed opportunity and stress per the rules cannot be retroactively placed if the next ship fired. However, most agree if it is forgotten, you will do what is best to correct it without affecting the game state.) I am sure some might have problems reconciling "following the rules" and doing "what is right" in a black and white world.

I fail to see the Irony. My post was simply that Camp 2 acknowledges the rules and that you're not a bad sport or horrible person if you enforce the rules.

VanorDM's post was trying to explain that there is no grey area to breaking the rules. The rule says something and if you go against that, you are breaking the rules. He never said that you must always follow the rules, there is no leeway. Just know that by letting a person change their dial after the fact, YOU ARE BREAKING THE RULES.

Do you understand?

He never said that you must always follow the rules, there is no leeway.

Thank you, it's nice to see someone gets it.

I even said in one of my other posts that it is possible to have a fair game with one side breaking the rules, provided both parties agree to it. But that doesn't change what you are doing in any way. If you're just playing a casual game, then what you do doesn't affect anyone else but the people playing that game.

If however you're in a tournament then what you do affects everyone else there. Also I don't think it's a huge stretch to say allowing someone to keep a ship that should be destroyed is a form of collusion to change the score, which is explicitly against the rules.