I am going to make one final statement on this topic. I have had a conversation with a member of the FFG OP team which was off the record. What I have decided to do personally is to put forth a self imposed ban through this store championship season and through the Regional season. I will not play in any sanctioned FFG X-Wing events again until Worlds. I view this as a fair and equitable response to my actions in 2014. I believe the game stands above one individual and this cannot be compromised. I will still play in smaller store tournaments and local leagues, but I will stay away from official tournaments. I know not all of you know me or about me, but I will hold to my word throughout this self imposed Ban.

Sincerely,

Sean Dorcy

While I commend the integrity that informs this decision, I can't support the outcome. You made a mistake, you have admitted it, and that alone makes you a bigger person than 75% of the anonymous public.

I was excited to listen to your ability to have a full year of competitive xwing experience, something you've been working towards for over a year now. I think you have commended yourself admirably through this non-controversy and shouldn't feel pressured to self-imposing a ridiculously harsh punishment.

I agree that the scores of the game are interpreted and the end result is awarded from the TO. I thought the tie-breaker for Swiss rounds was MOV to move on to the cut...

If you're referring to the scenario in the original post, the tie in question isn't the one that involves MoV. If at the end of a match, both players have destroyed an exactly equal number of each other's ships, the game results in a tie; both players get 1 Tournament point and +100 MoV points (because player 1's points destroyed - player 2's points destroyed is 0). A full win is 5 tournament points, and a modified win is 3, and a loss is 0. At the end of swiss, you compare Tournament points, and whoever has the most determines the people making the cut. In the event of a Tournament point tie, that's where you compare MoV. Often, in a tournament with the proper number of rounds, a Tie may as well be a Loss as far as Tournament points are concerned; the top cut will usually be 1 undefeated player, and however many players only lost a single round to fill out the rest of the bracket. Assuming a 5 round event, unless you tied at the top table in the last round, resulting in two 4-0-1 players, being 3-1-1 pretty much ensures you're out of contention unless there were a ton of modified wins, or the elimination cut is way bigger than it should be. That's all oversimplified a bit as there are all sorts of weird possible scenarios. For example, a player that goes 3-1-1, where all three wins are Full wins, will have 16 Tournament points, 1 more than another player who goes 5-0 but all of their wins are modified. Anyway...

Thank you for clarifying that. I was thinking after the swiss and before the cut, where MOV is used in a tie in tournament points. For an actual tie in a match, it should be a draw.

I think the ultimate fix action they hinted at on the show was to eliminate the modified win and make draws worth more than 1 point (2 or 3).

We love you Sean...you do not need to sit out this season!

The main piece I got from that episode of NOVA Squadron Radio was that the draw/modified win system needs to be tweaked or eliminated. If you get rid of modified win you could bump up the draw points to 2 or 3.

Considering how things go I really don't think a Modified Win should be worth so much more than a Draw. By that same token why should barely being outscored be just as bad as being completely eliminated? A full win awards 5 total points, a modified win only awards 3 total points and a draw just 2 total points; keep the full win advantage at 5 points but move Modified Wins and Draws up to 4 points total.

That would allow a person with a modified win to earn 80% of the match points while only beating their opponent by around 10% of the total possible margin or less. Does that seem more fair? I actually think the points awarded now are pretty accurately representing the outcome-- a very close but not dominant win, barely better than a draw (in terms of the final score).

I also think that getting rid of the modified win completely encourages less aggressive play by the player that is ahead by just a small margin.

I'm not saying scoring improvents shouldn't/couldn't be made but I don't think those are it, or at least would require additional changes in the ranges of what constitutes a modified win, etc..

I am going to make one final statement on this topic. I have had a conversation with a member of the FFG OP team which was off the record. What I have decided to do personally is to put forth a self imposed ban through this store championship season and through the Regional season. I will not play in any sanctioned FFG X-Wing events again until Worlds. I view this as a fair and equitable response to my actions in 2014. I believe the game stands above one individual and this cannot be compromised. I will still play in smaller store tournaments and local leagues, but I will stay away from official tournaments. I know not all of you know me or about me, but I will hold to my word throughout this self imposed Ban.

Sincerely,

Sean Dorcy

I won't like the post Sean as I don't like the fact that you feel you have to be punished before the mob for what I believe (rightly or wrongly) was an honest, non malicious mistake brought forth from a Fly Casual attitude that the X-Wing community is known for.

I agree, you were in the wrong. End of sentence.

I understand your choice and respect you for it, but I am not happy that you feel the need to impose this punishment upon yourself for the good image of the game, the NOVA podcast and yourself.

Kris

Agreed, I think people have thrown around the word 'cheating' carelessly. Difference is the intent. I would not call this cheating but a mistake.

Cheat:= to act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage, especially in a game or examination.

Who the **** cares if people flips coins and ****? I thought people were too busy flying casually to care so much about rankings?

I am going to make one final statement on this topic. I have had a conversation with a member of the FFG OP team which was off the record. What I have decided to do personally is to put forth a self imposed ban through this store championship season and through the Regional season. I will not play in any sanctioned FFG X-Wing events again until Worlds. I view this as a fair and equitable response to my actions in 2014. I believe the game stands above one individual and this cannot be compromised. I will still play in smaller store tournaments and local leagues, but I will stay away from official tournaments. I know not all of you know me or about me, but I will hold to my word throughout this self imposed Ban.

Sincerely,

Sean Dorcy

Come play at our club any time sir!

We are in Canada, but hey, if you're ever around.

The main piece I got from that episode of NOVA Squadron Radio was that the draw/modified win system needs to be tweaked or eliminated. If you get rid of modified win you could bump up the draw points to 2 or 3.

Considering how things go I really don't think a Modified Win should be worth so much more than a Draw. By that same token why should barely being outscored be just as bad as being completely eliminated? A full win awards 5 total points, a modified win only awards 3 total points and a draw just 2 total points; keep the full win advantage at 5 points but move Modified Wins and Draws up to 4 points total.

That would allow a person with a modified win to earn 80% of the match points while only beating their opponent by around 10% of the total possible margin or less. Does that seem more fair? I actually think the points awarded now are pretty accurately representing the outcome-- a very close but not dominant win, barely better than a draw (in terms of the final score).

I also think that getting rid of the modified win completely encourages less aggressive play by the player that is ahead by just a small margin.

I'm not saying scoring improvents shouldn't/couldn't be made but I don't think those are it, or at least would require additional changes in the ranges of what constitutes a modified win, etc..

Why having scoring at all? If you fail to eliminate your opponent in the time allowed and they failed to eliminate you it's a draw, other wise a win. Get rid of the scoring system completely. This will encourage more offensive play as the focus of the game should be destroy your opponents ships. Forget half points, margin of victory and modified wins, this will make it much more stream like and would have solved the problem of the two ship builds long ago as they would have lacked the offensive power to eliminate a full squad in time.

I thought this was the entire reason ffg put a challenge coin in the store championship kit was to allow for this.

The main piece I got from that episode of NOVA Squadron Radio was that the draw/modified win system needs to be tweaked or eliminated. If you get rid of modified win you could bump up the draw points to 2 or 3.

Considering how things go I really don't think a Modified Win should be worth so much more than a Draw. By that same token why should barely being outscored be just as bad as being completely eliminated? A full win awards 5 total points, a modified win only awards 3 total points and a draw just 2 total points; keep the full win advantage at 5 points but move Modified Wins and Draws up to 4 points total.

That would allow a person with a modified win to earn 80% of the match points while only beating their opponent by around 10% of the total possible margin or less. Does that seem more fair? I actually think the points awarded now are pretty accurately representing the outcome-- a very close but not dominant win, barely better than a draw (in terms of the final score).

I also think that getting rid of the modified win completely encourages less aggressive play by the player that is ahead by just a small margin.

I'm not saying scoring improvents shouldn't/couldn't be made but I don't think those are it, or at least would require additional changes in the ranges of what constitutes a modified win, etc..

I think you may be missing something when I say a game with a modified win or draw should award 4 points TOTAL. In the case of a modified win the victor would still get 3 points but the opponent who put in the valiant game but came up just short would still earn 1 point as a consolation.

The main piece I got from that episode of NOVA Squadron Radio was that the draw/modified win system needs to be tweaked or eliminated. If you get rid of modified win you could bump up the draw points to 2 or 3.

Considering how things go I really don't think a Modified Win should be worth so much more than a Draw. By that same token why should barely being outscored be just as bad as being completely eliminated? A full win awards 5 total points, a modified win only awards 3 total points and a draw just 2 total points; keep the full win advantage at 5 points but move Modified Wins and Draws up to 4 points total.

That would allow a person with a modified win to earn 80% of the match points while only beating their opponent by around 10% of the total possible margin or less. Does that seem more fair? I actually think the points awarded now are pretty accurately representing the outcome-- a very close but not dominant win, barely better than a draw (in terms of the final score).

I also think that getting rid of the modified win completely encourages less aggressive play by the player that is ahead by just a small margin.

I'm not saying scoring improvents shouldn't/couldn't be made but I don't think those are it, or at least would require additional changes in the ranges of what constitutes a modified win, etc..

I think you may be missing something when I say a game with a modified win or draw should award 4 points TOTAL. In the case of a modified win the victor would still get 3 points but the opponent who put in the valiant game but came up just short would still earn 1 point as a consolation.

Sorry guys, I have to disagree with the entire premise of this thread and I am NOT a WAAC sort of guy.

Tournament scoring is just another factor to consider when playing the game in a tournament environment. Just like how within an individual game you set target priority etc., in a tournament you need to be aware of what you need in order to advance. Taking a certain modified win vs. a 1/10 chance of a full win but 9/10 chance of losing isn't in the "spirit" of winning a single game but is certainly something you do if you are trying to win a tournament.

Objective rules such as placing templates, the result of die rolls, mandatory effects, and so on are things you cannot "game" without cheating. Subjective things such as when concessions are appropriate and/or whether or not you and your opponent should simply fly your ships in a circle for the entire round to secure a draw are judgments based solely on the perception of the people involved.

If you are going to have tournaments, and those tournaments are scored, you are setting ground rules under which people will be competing. Expecting those people to then play in a manner that is contrary to their best interests is not only foolish, but ultimately unenforceable. If your tournament rules and scoring are such that they cause individuals to consistently play for draws or encourage other similarly undesirable actions then you need to CHANGE THE RULES, not punish players for objectively legal plays.

Every game with a tournament scene eventually has this conversation. The bottom line is that attempting to adjudicate "collusion" in subjective play is FAR more prone to manipulation/cheating/unfair results than simply banning objective collusion (for example, both players agreeing to pretend a die result is other than what it was, misreporting the score, etc.). A full on concession is always a legal possibility for any player at any time and that player is NOT obligated to give a reason much less be judged on the "right" or "wrong" of his motivations. Who decides what is collusion? Maybe both players simply felt risking a loss was more damaging than flying in circles to a draw. If that is the case, what is the difference between setting their dials down and going for lunch until the round is over or simply agreeing to draw right away?

The only definition of "collusion" that is truly enforceable is when two players agree to explicitly break rules in order to manipulate the outcome.

You cannot adjudicate subjective rules without causing far more grief than you cure. And having people somehow suggesting that Sean Dorcy is or was a cheat is extraordinarily offensive. He was not playing for the benefit of other peoples strength of schedule, he was playing for his own. If someone was eliminated because they had a marginal record and a concession/draw left them out of the cut their remedy is to play better next time.

JMO.

This thread is largely done

Sorry guys, I have to disagree with the entire premise of this thread and I am NOT a WAAC sort of guy.

Tournament scoring is just another factor to consider when playing the game in a tournament environment. Just like how within an individual game you set target priority etc., in a tournament you need to be aware of what you need in order to advance. Taking a certain modified win vs. a 1/10 chance of a full win but 9/10 chance of losing isn't in the "spirit" of winning a single game but is certainly something you do if you are trying to win a tournament.

Objective rules such as placing templates, the result of die rolls, mandatory effects, and so on are things you cannot "game" without cheating. Subjective things such as when concessions are appropriate and/or whether or not you and your opponent should simply fly your ships in a circle for the entire round to secure a draw are judgments based solely on the perception of the people involved.

If you are going to have tournaments, and those tournaments are scored, you are setting ground rules under which people will be competing. Expecting those people to then play in a manner that is contrary to their best interests is not only foolish, but ultimately unenforceable. If your tournament rules and scoring are such that they cause individuals to consistently play for draws or encourage other similarly undesirable actions then you need to CHANGE THE RULES, not punish players for objectively legal plays.

Every game with a tournament scene eventually has this conversation. The bottom line is that attempting to adjudicate "collusion" in subjective play is FAR more prone to manipulation/cheating/unfair results than simply banning objective collusion (for example, both players agreeing to pretend a die result is other than what it was, misreporting the score, etc.). A full on concession is always a legal possibility for any player at any time and that player is NOT obligated to give a reason much less be judged on the "right" or "wrong" of his motivations. Who decides what is collusion? Maybe both players simply felt risking a loss was more damaging than flying in circles to a draw. If that is the case, what is the difference between setting their dials down and going for lunch until the round is over or simply agreeing to draw right away?

The only definition of "collusion" that is truly enforceable is when two players agree to explicitly break rules in order to manipulate the outcome.

You cannot adjudicate subjective rules without causing far more grief than you cure. And having people somehow suggesting that Sean Dorcy is or was a cheat is extraordinarily offensive. He was not playing for the benefit of other peoples strength of schedule, he was playing for his own. If someone was eliminated because they had a marginal record and a concession/draw left them out of the cut their remedy is to play better next time.

JMO.

Sorry but what you said in your quote is exactly what happened in this case. Just because *some* instances of collusion are hard to judge it doesn't follow that they *all* are.