It's always funny how people get upset by concessions. Now I agree that doing so AFTER the game is over is bad form for several reasons but it seems many are just against the idea period. If you want to concede to your opponent then "OFF WITH YOUR HEAD!" seems to be the popular form because why would anyone do that except to manipulate game results. Maybe you can forbid concessions but where does that stop? Am I cheating if I "accidentally" fly all of my ships off the board and give my opponent a win that way? It is? So how about if I fly so poorly and happen to land on asteroids and such right in front of his ships making the game easy for him? I guess that is still cheating too huh? Now I guess I people seem to have no problems with me forgetting to do various things like take actions and if I fail to "remind" my opponent that shooting at a ship with a Rebel Captive produces stress that is all my fault. Heaven forbid if I happen to ask my opponent if he was skipping some trigger he could/should be taking advantage of.

If this is how tournament are run...

It's always funny how people get upset by concessions. Now I agree that doing so AFTER the game is over is bad form for several reasons but it seems many are just against the idea period. If you want to concede to your opponent then "OFF WITH YOUR HEAD!" seems to be the popular form because why would anyone do that except to manipulate game results. Maybe you can forbid concessions but where does that stop? Am I cheating if I "accidentally" fly all of my ships off the board and give my opponent a win that way? It is? So how about if I fly so poorly and happen to land on asteroids and such right in front of his ships making the game easy for him? I guess that is still cheating too huh? Now I guess I people seem to have no problems with me forgetting to do various things like take actions and if I fail to "remind" my opponent that shooting at a ship with a Rebel Captive produces stress that is all my fault. Heaven forbid if I happen to ask my opponent if he was skipping some trigger he could/should be taking advantage of.

If this is how tournament are run...

I'm not upset by the concession itself. I've won games by concession: sometimes you can see the writing on the wall and you just don't want to play anymore, and that's okay. I've also conceded games, especially when I'm frustrated and need to go cool off for a few minutes to get my head on straight.

What gets me about this story is that the person offering the concession admitted he was doing it because he wanted to give his friend a better shot at winning. (The timing of the concession backs up his admitted motive, but otherwise I'm not worried about it.) The conceding player was taking a dive in order to artificially improve his friend's record, and that's not okay.

It's always funny how people get upset by concessions. Now I agree that doing so AFTER the game is over is bad form for several reasons but it seems many are just against the idea period. If you want to concede to your opponent then "OFF WITH YOUR HEAD!" seems to be the popular form because why would anyone do that except to manipulate game results. Maybe you can forbid concessions but where does that stop? Am I cheating if I "accidentally" fly all of my ships off the board and give my opponent a win that way? It is? So how about if I fly so poorly and happen to land on asteroids and such right in front of his ships making the game easy for him? I guess that is still cheating too huh? Now I guess I people seem to have no problems with me forgetting to do various things like take actions and if I fail to "remind" my opponent that shooting at a ship with a Rebel Captive produces stress that is all my fault. Heaven forbid if I happen to ask my opponent if he was skipping some trigger he could/should be taking advantage of. If this is how tournament are run...

I'm not upset by the concession itself. I've won games by concession: sometimes you can see the writing on the wall and you just don't want to play anymore, and that's okay. I've also conceded games, especially when I'm frustrated and need to go cool off for a few minutes to get my head on straight.What gets me about this story is that the person offering the concession admitted he was doing it because he wanted to give his friend a better shot at winning. (The timing of the concession backs up his admitted motive, but otherwise I'm not worried about it.) The conceding player was taking a dive in order to artificially improve his friend's record, and that's not okay.

Concession isn't a problem. Sometimes you are having a bad day. A friend of mine conceded his first match and went home one day at tourney because everything that could've gone wrong did. So he decided to concede and pack it in. He left.

I've also seen people just mercy out of a round knowing that the writing is on the wall, and rather than continue to drag out the inevitable, they concede.

Concession is ok. Winning a match, then conceding it to make a friend better off in the standings is not normal concession. It's sort of mind-blowing that FFG considers concession after the fact allowable, as it seems allowing that is helping to create this sort of problem. The motive of the concession, as well as the perceived motive, is very important. Concede because you're angry and need a while to focus? Cool. Concede because there is no way to stop a slow inevitable death? Fine (although I typically play until the bitter end, especially in a tourney) great. Concede to a friend after winning a match so they'll get to the final table? That sounds fishy, so I'm going to call over a judge, at least. That didn't happen here.

I am going to weigh in here with a quote from the Netrunner Floor rules on collusion:

Collusion—Disqualification

We know collusion is bad and it is. Players aren't supposed to be doing it. T.O.'s are supposed to be catching it an there are not.

In the example in the O.P., both players were involved in the collusion. We know this because both of them filled out a score sheet where one player had tabled the other player (however, it was the other way around until the end and the "winning" player conceded). Both players turned in false results of the match.

A bribe does not have to occur to have collusion, that would be bribery, a wholly different and DQ'able offence in itself.

Collusion is two players agreeing on a way to fix the scoring. Who gets more points and why doesn't matter at that point as collusion has already happened.

IMO FFG sets the bar so high on collusion,because they're weary of setting precedents.

The last thing you need is the game makers encouraging an over the top hard-line attitude. Worst case scenario: 'you let your opponent do a takeback on a missed opportunity and he beat you? Suspected collusion!' 'your 4 Rookie pilot list just reported a 200-0 win vs. <insert top of the meta list here>? Suspected collusion!' 'You had to go mid-round and conceded? Suspected collusion!'

IMO, the best option for FFG is to show restraint, and let the TOs use best judgement on every case. If you feel you need to write FFG about it, then you, as a TO probably don't feel it was clear enough to have exercised your explicit TO powers on it from the beginning.