This isn't about what someone did in 2014, It's about protecting players from this behavior right now at the height of Store Championship season by countering the misinformation coming from that extremely popular (and usually excellent) podcast.

I agree! What happened in 2014, whether it was right or wrong, stays in 2014. I don't see how it is possible to investigate and penalise an alleged infraction from 2014. There's no need for a retroactive witch-hunt. Case closed!

(I can't properly edit my previous post #17 quotes, so it may have conveyed the wrong impression?)

I completely disagree. How does the fact that it happened in 2014 have any relevance *at all* on the fact that the player cheated?

What if we found out that Paul Heaver admitted to winning the 2014 world championship by using rigged dice? Does it suddenly become okay just because it happened in 2014 and not this year?

This is fairly easy to investigate, the player in question admitted to it (allegedly, I haven't listened to the podcast in question though I will later). How much more evidence do you need?

To what end? You gain nothing from it. If it was your buddy and it was obvious you hadn't lost then maybe there is a case for collusion, but that's why I said that this is a case by case judgment.

If you already made the cut regradless of your last result, it might be in your best interest to allow a weaker opponent to progress to the elimination round.

Regardless of intent, by conceeding a game that's not a steamroll (as in obviously he will beat you 200-0 anyway) you are manipulating your opponent's MOV and therefore the tournament result. It might not matter to you, but it likely matters to someone.

I'll bold the part of my post that addresses what you've just said...

Pokemon X-Wing.

This isn't about what someone did in 2014, It's about protecting players from this behavior right now at the height of Store Championship season by countering the misinformation coming from that extremely popular (and usually excellent) podcast.

I agree! What happened in 2014, whether it was right or wrong, stays in 2014. I don't see how it is possible to investigate and penalise an alleged infraction from 2014. There's no need for a retroactive witch-hunt. Case closed!

(I can't properly edit my previous post #17 quotes, so it may have conveyed the wrong impression?)

I completely disagree. How does the fact that it happened in 2014 have any relevance *at all* on the fact that the player cheated?

You are retroactively applying a punishment system that did not exist at the date of the 'crime'. If he cheated in 2014, he should be given whatever the appropriate measure was in 2014.

How is that any different than the current one person "punished" ?

Edited

Wow, it really seems like these two players screwed up quite badly without even realizing.

The best course of action I think, would be to approach the TO with the situation and explain that the error was made in ignorance of the rules, or at least without complete knowledge of what collusion meant in this instance.

I'm sure and honest and straightforward explanation of the situation will not result in a second name on the list of shame.

Edit: I originally posted a quote here from the podcast, but I've decided that it might color people's opinion before they listen to it, I'd just recommend people listen to the first half hour of the podcast. I personally think it's pretty damning but that's just my opinion and I'd like to hear what everyone else thinks about it.

Edit: I originally posted a quote here from the podcast, but I've decided that it might color people's opinion before they listen to it, I'd just recommend people listen to the first half hour of the podcast. I personally think it's pretty damning but that's just my opinion and I'd like to hear what everyone else thinks about it.

Could you specify which episode ?

Edit: I originally posted a quote here from the podcast, but I've decided that it might color people's opinion before they listen to it, I'd just recommend people listen to the first half hour of the podcast. I personally think it's pretty damning but that's just my opinion and I'd like to hear what everyone else thinks about it.

Could you specify which episode ?

Episode 41 around the 24 minute mark I think.

Smells rotten to me.

Smells rare to me.

Draws are the bane of any tournament system. There should always be rules to determine a true winner in the result of a tie to prevent these sort of "we both lost" situations.

Also, initiative seems like a questionable tiebreaker in general for whatever that's worth.

Collusion and conceding are not the same thing. If it is just a matter of time before you lose your last ship that is limping around the board and you want to concede so you can go get something to eat and beat the bathroom rush by all means, why drag out the inevitable ?

In a game that it involves chance, it is only ever "just a matter of time" before something happens if time is unlimited. Because X-Wing has strict time limits, it is possible that a game will stretch on for 15 turns with the players bumping, being out-of-arc, and/or rolling no hits and all evades.

Conceding a game is making a decision to determine the way that the match is scored and has no place in a competition that involves partial scoring that can impact the end result. While it typically does not involve collusion, I am sure that there are plenty of instances where a game, if the potentially conceding player did everything in their power to keep a ship alive, would not end 200-100 outside of one player giving up.

Not to make this worse, but here's an interesting one. This is much harder in Xwing...

I played an Armada tournament where a guy took the hard counter to my list and then had objectives that I felt only exacerbated the hard counter. Yet from his history, he's also risk adverse and won't engage. He also has a slow list that doesn't really chase or engage well at all.

On Armada mats there's plenty plenty of space to run if you don't feel like engaging.

So... we did that. We were the last players in a tournament cuz the other two left early. For 3 out of 6 turns (there's a turn cap in armada), we literally drifted away from each other. At turn 4, we agreed to call it a draw, wherein, he gets first place due to having a previous win, and i get... dubiously 2nd place, with an altogether unexpected 1win 2 draws (even after MOV). Both other players took a loss and left before playing the 3rd game.

Is that colluding?

Technically yes, it is colluding, but if you're the only two left then it doesn't affect anybody else does it?

Regarding conceding, I hadn't thought of it before but it's true that it does give the winner an unfair advantage. Difficult to prevent, of course - you can't make somebody play. They should be kicked out of the whole tournament I suppose, dunno if anything further would be warranted.

If someone wants to concede you cannot force them to play it out. If they're done, they're done. They could just as easily fly their ships off the board as say I concede, you've got this. Again this is more often than not, not collusion and would need to be handled on a case by case basis.

?

.

You can manipulate the MOV though. If you conceede, opponent gets 200-0 afaik.

I think we really need to stop talking about conceding in this topic just because it's far more complicated than the actual topic and is becoming a red herring.

A player can only concede during play. Once time has been called wins, losses, and ties are decided by the current MOV rules. Reporting anything short of this is cheating.

From the Tournament Rule book page 3:

End of Match

Each tournament match ends in one of the following ways:

• At the end of a game round, all of one player’s ships are destroyed. The player with at least one ship remaining immediately earns a win, and the opposing player receives a loss. If neither player has any remaining ships, the game ends in a draw.

• At the end of the current round, the match time limit has been reached. (If time is called mid-round, players must finish the round.) Each player calculates their score by adding together the total squad point value of their opponent’s destroyed ships, including Upgrade cards equipped to those ships. The player with the greater score receives a win, and his opponent receives a loss. If the winning player’s score is fewer than 12 points more than his or her opponent’s score, that player receives a modified win. If both players have the same score, the game ends in a draw.

• A player voluntarily concedes defeat at any point during the match. The conceding player receives a loss and the opponent receives a win.

Option 3 is off the table once the match has concluded. Only options 1 or 2 remain. Furthermore:

Collusion among players to manipulate scoring is expressly forbidden. (5)

I don't think it gets any more clear cut than that.

A player can only concede during play. Once time has been called wins, losses, and ties are decided by the current MOV rules. Reporting anything short of this is cheating.

Reporting it is cheating?

There is nothing currently in the Tournament rules that prohibits this behavior specifically, nor for that matter is there any rule specifically prohibiting intentional draws or bribery in exchange for match wins. "Collusion among players to manipulate scoring is expressly forbidden."

Direct from the tournament rules:

Conduct

Players, judges, and all other tournament participants are expected to act in a

respectful and professional manner during a tournament.

Unsportsmanlike Conduct

Players are expected to behave in a mature and considerate manner, and to

play within the rules and not abuse them. This prohibits intentionally stalling

a game for time, placing components with excessive force, abusing an infinite

combo, inappropriate behavior, treating an opponent with a lack of courtesy

or respect, etc. Collusion among players to manipulate scoring is expressly

forbidden.

The head judge, at his or her sole discretion, may remove players from the

tournament for unsportsmanlike conduct.

(The bolded section in question has been present, to my knowledge, since the original introduction of the tournament rules.)

The game ended in a draw. How can you even forfeit a game after the game has already concluded?

Edit: Also direct from the tournament rules:

End of Match

Each tournament match ends in one of the following ways:

• At the end of a game round, all of one player’s ships are destroyed. The

player with at least one ship remaining immediately earns a win, and the

opposing player receives a loss. If neither player has any remaining ships,

the game ends in a draw.

• At the end of the current round, the match time limit has been reached.

(If time is called mid-round, players must finish the round.) Each player

calculates their score by adding together the total squad point value of

their opponent’s destroyed ships, including Upgrade cards equipped to

those ships. The player with the greater score receives a win, and his

opponent receives a loss. If the winning player’s score is fewer than

12 points more than his or her opponent’s score, that player receives

a modified win. If both players have the same score, the game ends

in a draw.

• A player voluntarily concedes defeat at any point during the match. The

conceding player receives a loss and the opponent receives a win.

My understanding is that these conditions programmatically follow an "if / elseif" model:

if {condition 1}

statements

elseif {condition 2}

statements

elseif {condition 3}

statements

end if

I.e. if condition 1 triggers, then condition 2 and 3 cannot trigger. Likewise if condition 2 triggers (and condition 1 does not), then condition 3 cannot trigger. Since time had been called, the players MUST finish the round. The game then ends according to the first triggering condition (if one player's ships are completely eliminated in the final round after time is called) or second triggering condition (time is called and both players still have ships remaining).

An additional line in the tournament rules here explicitly stating that players cannot forfeit after a match has concluded or during the final round would be helpful.

However, the players decided that it would be disadvantageous for them to both get a "loss" (Sean actually explained this in not so many words -- because of "how much was at stake"), so they intentionally manipulated the scoring such that one player would get a full win. It is a textbook definition of collusion.

How do you propose to penalise someone for an alleged infraction that was committed in 2014?

This isn't about what someone did in 2014, It's about protecting players from this behavior right now at the height of Store Championship season by countering the misinformation coming from that extremely popular (and usually excellent) podcast.

I should have spoken up during the podcast. As it was I was getting derailed from my original point, so unfortunately I didn't point out the tournament rules' prohibition of collusion at the time. I'll talk to Ed about it, hopefully we can address this next episode.

I think we really need to stop talking about conceding in this topic just because it's far more complicated than the actual topic and is becoming a red herring.

It's not, it is at the heart of the issue: the players flipped a coin to decide who would formally concede.

A player can only concede during play. Once time has been called wins, losses, and ties are decided by the current MOV rules. Reporting anything short of this is cheating.

Reporting it is cheating?

Reporting anything short of the outcome of the match is cheating.

No matter how I look at Dorcy's account of what happened, it appears to be collusion to manipulate the scoring. As long as no one is defending what was done, let's call this a verbal warning to everyone and move on.

And based on FFG's history, they would come to the same conclusion. They really, really don't like collusion.

I am going to answer this accusation in the only way I can. I was wrong and the rules prove it. unfortunately I used bad judgment in my decision to decide a game with a coin flip. That by definition is collusion. I have no defense for this as I should have known better and actually do know better than to allow this. With my experience as a TO I have no right to think that anything I do is above any other person or player associated with this awesome game. If FFG decides to censure me in any way I will fully accept their decision no matter what it is, and I will in no way dispute it. I am glad someone from the community brought this topic up as it has taught me a lesson in my conduct while playing this great game. One other thing to point out is that whether I did this in 2014 or yesterday, my conduct was deplorable. I want to apologize for my actions to the community that I love, to Organized play for putting my own concerns above the game on that day, and my friends who trust in my judgments when making rulings on this game. I accept FULL responsibility for my actions.

I think we really need to stop talking about conceding in this topic just because it's far more complicated than the actual topic and is becoming a red herring.

It's not, it is at the heart of the issue: the players flipped a coin to decide who would formally concede.

Okay, maybe I should have been clearer, I meant.... Let's talk about just *this* instance of conceding. If we open it up to conceding in general then it's just opening up a giant can of worms.

A player can only concede during play. Once time has been called wins, losses, and ties are decided by the current MOV rules. Reporting anything short of this is cheating.

Reporting it is cheating?

Reporting anything short of the outcome of the match is cheating.

Okay, lame joke I guess. The way I read your post initially made me think you were saying that reporting the incident is cheating.