... It did occur after the game had been played, but the conceding player didn't gain anything by doing it.

But he did. He got the satisfaction of having his friend go on to the finals. Wold he do the same for ANY opponent?

This point was made in our local group as well. The answer is no. Actually, after taking the dive in the 3rd round he went on to clobber his final opponent, who was somebody towards the bottom of the standings. That's another thing that bothered me about this. It not only unfairly benefitted the advancing player, it also skewed the standings so that an incredibly skilled player was taking on some folks toward the bottom. Floks that may have had a different outcome if they were playing others that were truly 1-2, not 2-1. The only game the conceding player lost was to the guy who ended up playing in the championship round against the guy who benefitted from the bye. And even then it was a really close game.

But no, he wasn't that generous to everyone.

I just have to ask to all those who dislike this outcome because the concession came "after the match was already over."

Let's say the situation is the same (two friends playing, one of whom already has a regional bye).

The player with the bye says at the start of the match, "I already have a bye, you win this one, but let's play it out anyways," and then proceeds to table his opponent. Match is reported as a 200-0 win for the player without the bye.

Do you still have problems with this?

I'm personally not a fan of manipulating results ("Hey, if we draw the last round of swiss, we both make the cut" -- I've seen that happen before in various other games, though not yet in X-Wing), but I don't see this the same as what some others here apparently do, as collusion. In the scenario as presented, the player who was conceded to did not ask for the concession, or offer anything for the concession. It did occur after the game had been played, but the conceding player didn't gain anything by doing it.

I see your point, and it's one that's been made before. I sort of agree with you here. If it was clear from the get-go he was going to concede, it's not as bad. However it's still not the most transparent thing. Folding a game with the intention to help a friend advance isn't right, even with good motivation. You're essentially giving them a free bye that other players don't have access to. That doesn't seem fair to me.

So collusion only happens if a person gets a physical reward in exchange for participating in score fixing? What a bogus ruling.

So I can cheat as long as I'm not the one benefitting. Got it!

Offhand, I'm having trouble coming up with a more damaging way to resolve this. Now there's a public precedent that says exactly that: it's not collusion unless an actual bribe changes hands.

So if I travel to a tournament with three strong players, we can all agree beforehand that when we meet, the guy with the worse record/lower MOV will concede. We get a round to relax, eat, and chat, and the player in the better position gets the best possible result... while everyone else is still playing and working their brains with no guarantee of being able to match my friend's "performance". And according to Organized Play, that's not collusion.

What the hell?

I mentioned this upthread but will do so again. A "Match" should be considered the time from when you sit down to the time you turn in the results. During this time you will play a "game" which will cover the time from setting up until the last ship is destroyed but even after the game is over the match is not done until it is scored and reported.

So collusion only happens if a person gets a physical reward in exchange for participating in score fixing? What a bogus ruling.

So I can cheat as long as I'm not the one benefitting. Got it!

Offhand, I'm having trouble coming up with a more damaging way to resolve this. Now there's a public precedent that says exactly that: it's not collusion unless an actual bribe changes hands.

So if I travel to a tournament with three strong players, we can all agree beforehand that when we meet, the guy with the worse record/lower MOV will concede. We get a round to relax, eat, and chat, and the player in the better position gets the best possible result... while everyone else is still playing and working their brains with no guarantee of being able to match my friend's "performance". And according to Organized Play, that's not collusion.

What the hell?

I think you are forgetting that this is a game and regardless of who is playing who, most of us go to tournaments to play at least 3 games of xwing, not to **** around with friends. I can do that for free at my house. Do you really want that bye so bad? A challenge coin? I would rather go home at the end of the day after having flew well then go home with a challenge coin because I gamed the system. If someone else wants the coin so bad they are willing to border on what some are calling unsportsmanlike behavior, then fine.

If its not this it will be something else. This is NOT a major event.

I mentioned this upthread but will do so again. A "Match" should be considered the time from when you sit down to the time you turn in the results. During this time you will play a "game" which will cover the time from setting up until the last ship is destroyed but even after the game is over the match is not done until it is scored and reported.

That does seem to be how Mr. Weiskotten of FFG is seeing it. If the rules were written that way, I would agree. But the rules don't address scoring as part of the match. It's actually left off of each End of Match condition. Again, the first condition says the "match" ends immediately after the round in which all of one players ships are destroyed ends. It doesn't say the "game" ends, and I believe the nuance is important there. Concession should happen while dice are still being rolled (or could be rolled). It shouldn't come after a player has had time to review the results, see where the rest of the field is, and then make a decision.

Another small nuance to this. When conceding a match, all of your ships are destroyed, but what if the "game" is already over as it was in this case, and you crushed your opponent. The game concludes. How do you score that? Do you re-open the game to change the MOV?

Mr. Weiskotten mentions a future iteration of the rules will clear up the disconnect, and I hope it does. As he said, if more instances of winning/concession happen, especially since it seems FFG is condoning this behavior, that may be unfortunate.

My earlier posts have stated several opinions on this. Perhaps the MOST relevant one is that conceding AFTER destroying all of your opponent's ship should only score as a DRAW and that is simply because of how a concession appears like it should work. If you concede you DO NOT automatically give your opponent a 5 point win with 200 MoV while you get nothing but rather you are saying that all of your remaining ships are instantly destroyed. Do that at the start of the game and you easily get that full win with a 200/0 MoV but do it after the other side has lost all of its ships and now it should be scored as a DRAW with a 100/100 MoV. IF the game is scored that way then what happens? I also stated it would have been so much cleaner if the concession was offered during the game even if it came during the finally attack.

I have no issues with Concession and even believe there should be a lesser version of it that locks the board state instead being a full kill. I also support expanding what should be considered a draw and also awarding a tournament point to the person on the other side of a Modified Win; in regards to the last two the MoV for a full win could be increased as well. I'll admit it could make tournament scoring harder to keep track of but that also would make some of this so called collusion more difficult because it should be harder to measure the state of the entire tournament.

Kill of your entire opponent's squadron and then concede should be a draw.

Have a battle where both sides still have ships on the board as game time is called I certainly can see a concession being used which could turn the winning side around.

... we can all agree beforehand that when we meet, the guy with the worse record/lower MOV will concede. We get a round to relax, eat, and chat, and the player in the better position gets the best possible result... while everyone else is still playing and working their brains with no guarantee of being able to match my friend's "performance". And according to Organized Play, that's not collusion.What the hell?

That is not what the FFG ruling says. The scenario that you described has a trade. It is players agreeing to concede to benefit each other under certain circumstances. What was described to FFG seems to be that one of the players in a game, of their own volition and without provocation, conceded to benefit their opponent. While this is contrary to the idea of competing, it is not, according to FFG's response, against the rules.

So collusion only happens if a person gets a physical reward in exchange for participating in score fixing? What a bogus ruling.

So I can cheat as long as I'm not the one benefitting. Got it!

Offhand, I'm having trouble coming up with a more damaging way to resolve this. Now there's a public precedent that says exactly that: it's not collusion unless an actual bribe changes hands.

So if I travel to a tournament with three strong players, we can all agree beforehand that when we meet, the guy with the worse record/lower MOV will concede. We get a round to relax, eat, and chat, and the player in the better position gets the best possible result... while everyone else is still playing and working their brains with no guarantee of being able to match my friend's "performance". And according to Organized Play, that's not collusion.

What the hell?

My thoughts exactly man. This was a bad move and the sooner they update the rules/faq, the better.

... we can all agree beforehand that when we meet, the guy with the worse record/lower MOV will concede. We get a round to relax, eat, and chat, and the player in the better position gets the best possible result... while everyone else is still playing and working their brains with no guarantee of being able to match my friend's "performance". And according to Organized Play, that's not collusion.What the hell?

That is not what the FFG ruling says. The scenario that you described has a trade. It is players agreeing to concede to benefit each other under certain circumstances. What was described to FFG seems to be that one of the players in a game, of their own volition and without provocation, conceded to benefit their opponent. While this is contrary to the idea of competing, it is not, according to FFG's response, against the rules.

I think the issue that's being missed is that it can't be collusion if one player concedes. I mean, what can the other one do right?

Honestly though, there is a lot that could be done. You could call a judge over and say, "Hey, this guy beat me, and a few minutes after the match he decided to concede and give me the win so I can play in the championship game. Is that ok with you TO/Judge?" Right there, it takes a lot of ambiguity out of the situation. The TO/Judge should be able to make the call on site to determine if it's a case of boosting/unsportsmanlike conduct. Saying that it's all on the conceding player when they're known friends, and the conceding player explicitly tells a few people during and many people after the event that he conceded to make sure his friend made the final table, that's collusion if the other player doesn't bring it up. You don't have to announce, "YES, LET'S CHEAT" to collude. Collusion can come from inaction as well. Knowing your friend is going to concede a game to benefit you, so you have a better chance at winning, and not making it clear to the judge/TO is an act of complicity. It's basically just not taking responsibility for your actions.

Again, this is my opinion, but knowing that potential wrongdoing is going on, and not saying anything about it, especially when it benefits you, is also wrong.

Offhand, I'm having trouble coming up with a more damaging way to resolve this. Now there's a public precedent that says exactly that: it's not collusion unless an actual bribe changes hands.

So if I travel to a tournament with three strong players, we can all agree beforehand that when we meet, the guy with the worse record/lower MOV will concede. We get a round to relax, eat, and chat, and the player in the better position gets the best possible result... while everyone else is still playing and working their brains with no guarantee of being able to match my friend's "performance". And according to Organized Play, that's not collusion.

What the hell?

I think you are forgetting that this is a game and regardless of who is playing who, most of us go to tournaments to play at least 3 games of xwing, not to **** around with friends. I can do that for free at my house. Do you really want that bye so bad? A challenge coin? I would rather go home at the end of the day after having flew well then go home with a challenge coin because I gamed the system. If someone else wants the coin so bad they are willing to border on what some are calling unsportsmanlike behavior, then fine.

My point is the situation I described isn't even on the borderline of unsportsmanlike behavior, it's outright cheating. And we have an e-mail from Organized Play to back up the fact that they see it as within the rules and wouldn't take action.

In other words, they've set the bar for collusion so high that it's never actually going to be triggered--even by a situation anyone should be able to identify as deliberate manipulation of the results.

That is not what the FFG ruling says. The scenario that you described has a trade. It is players agreeing to concede to benefit each other under certain circumstances. What was described to FFG seems to be that one of the players in a game, of their own volition and without provocation, conceded to benefit their opponent. While this is contrary to the idea of competing, it is not, according to FFG's response, against the rules.

Quoting the email from Organized Play:

Collusion is any sort of manufactured result by players in which at least one of the players receives something in return for declaring that outcome.

In the situation I described, what thing am I getting in return for conceding to my friend? In fact I'm doing exactly what the winner of the match in the topic post did: I'm conceding in order to give my opponent an advantage in the next round. According to OP, my only recourse is to "share my concerns" with the players involved.

So according to this email, so long as their is no bribe in place in exchange for the result, players are free to agree upon and manufacture whatever result they see fit with thier opponent?

So

"Hey I know I this isn't how the game went down at all, but just taking a look at the games that have finished up I think I'm going to need a stronger MoV to make the cut, so how bout we report it that way instead"

You could have that conversation infront of a TO, and yet not be open to ramifications unless you include "and oh I'll give you a dollar". I'm not sure if inane of insane is best to describe that possibility.

I mean in reality what OP is saying is that collusion is not at all illegal, only bribing a player is.

This new OP Director is not very good from what I've seen.

Offhand, I'm having trouble coming up with a more damaging way to resolve this. Now there's a public precedent that says exactly that: it's not collusion unless an actual bribe changes hands.So if I travel to a tournament with three strong players, we can all agree beforehand that when we meet, the guy with the worse record/lower MOV will concede. We get a round to relax, eat, and chat, and the player in the better position gets the best possible result... while everyone else is still playing and working their brains with no guarantee of being able to match my friend's "performance". And according to Organized Play, that's not collusion.What the hell?

I think you are forgetting that this is a game and regardless of who is playing who, most of us go to tournaments to play at least 3 games of xwing, not to **** around with friends. I can do that for free at my house. Do you really want that bye so bad? A challenge coin? I would rather go home at the end of the day after having flew well then go home with a challenge coin because I gamed the system. If someone else wants the coin so bad they are willing to border on what some are calling unsportsmanlike behavior, then fine.

My point is the situation I described isn't even on the borderline of unsportsmanlike behavior, it's outright cheating. And we have an e-mail from Organized Play to back up the fact that they see it as within the rules and wouldn't take action.In other words, they've set the bar for collusion so high that it's never actually going to be triggered--even by a situation anyone should be able to identify as deliberate manipulation of the results.

That is not what the FFG ruling says. The scenario that you described has a trade. It is players agreeing to concede to benefit each other under certain circumstances. What was described to FFG seems to be that one of the players in a game, of their own volition and without provocation, conceded to benefit their opponent. While this is contrary to the idea of competing, it is not, according to FFG's response, against the rules.

Quoting the email from Organized Play:

Collusion is any sort of manufactured result by players in which at least one of the players receives something in return for declaring that outcome.

In the situation I described, what thing am I getting in return for conceding to my friend? In fact I'm doing exactly what the winner of the match in the topic post did: I'm conceding in order to give my opponent an advantage in the next round. According to OP, my only recourse is to "share my concerns" with the players involved.

Well I'd say that whichever player is benefiting from the contrived result is receiving something, the false result, in agreeing to declare the false outcome. But apparently it needs to go a step further then just the result to an actual tangible bribe. So why is collusion illegal if it is not illegal unless accompanied by a bribe?

A promise.

The agreement is the trade - the "something in return." In exchange for your friend agreeing to concede if you are doing better than him, you agree to concede if he is doing better than you. This is the difference between the hypothetical that you created and what was actually presented to FFG.

So according to this email, so long as their is no bribe in place in exchange for the result, players are free to agree upon and manufacture whatever result they see fit with thier opponent?

So

"Hey I know I this isn't how the game went down at all, but just taking a look at the games that have finished up I think I'm going to need a stronger MoV to make the cut, so how bout we report it that way instead"

You could have that conversation infront of a TO, and yet not be open to ramifications unless you include "and oh I'll give you a dollar". I'm not sure if inane of insane is best to describe that possibility.

I mean in reality what OP is saying is that collusion is not at all illegal, only bribing a player is.

This new OP Director is not very good from what I've seen.

I think we all need to calm down.

Let's look at the definition of collusion:

Collusion: secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

Interestingly, there's no mention of quid pro quo (this for that; exchange of anything) at all in that basic definition. So, maybe there was collusion just to manipulate the results, but it's not like that is expressly forbidden in the official X-Wing Tournament Rules...oh wait, I just found the following in v. 4.0.1

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.

Oh boy...Now I'm really confused.

Please excuse my sarcasm, but collusion isn't quid pro quo bribery. It is simply a secret agreement with the intent to deceive. That bar has been met in this case. The match was played out in its entirety, then the players agreed it would be more beneficial for one party to manipulate the results via a concession. One player gets into the final round, with the highest score and MOV, and the other feels good for "helping" a buddy. You don't need to get swag or money or any physical item to get something. Self-satisfaction is a thing. Again, just one man's opinion...

FFG responded the way that it did because there can't really be collusion without cooperation between the parties, which there appears not to have been in this case.

This is nonsense. Essentially, you're claiming the timing of an agreement is the determining factor: if we do it in the car on the way there, it's collusion, but if we do it at the table it's all fair and above-board. That's absurd.

the victorious player decides to concede so his friend has a better shot at winning

Maybe I am missing it, but when did the OP say that the two players agreed to anything? It appears that the player who would have otherwise won decided to conceded on his own. Unless the OP updates us now, or unless I missed that part of the story, we have to assume that the situation was presented to FFG just as it was to us.

FFG responded the way that it did because there can't really be collusion without cooperation between the parties, which there appears not to have been in this case.

This is nonsense. Essentially, you're claiming the timing of an agreement is the determining factor: if we do it in the car on the way there, it's collusion, but if we do it at the table it's all fair and above-board. That's absurd.

Where did you get that from?

Care to quote me where I said that the timing of an agreement was a deciding factor (or even a factor at all)? I have been through this with you before, so I know that you will ignore me when I ask you to quote me when you claim that I said something, but I will gladly admit that I misrepresented what I was attempting to articulate if you can provide the quote.

What I said is that your hypothetical adds fact that are not present in the actual situation being discussed. You seem to think that FFG said that players can agree for one to concede in order for the other to benefit. That is not true. The FFG response is saying that one player unilaterally conceding to benefit another is not collusion.

FFG responded the way that it did because there can't really be collusion without cooperation between the parties, which there appears not to have been in this case.

This is nonsense. Essentially, you're claiming the timing of an agreement is the determining factor: if we do it in the car on the way there, it's collusion, but if we do it at the table it's all fair and above-board. That's absurd.

Where did you get that from?

Care to quote me where I said that the timing of an agreement was a deciding factor (or even a factor at all)?

I'll try to make this as simple for you as possible.

When two people play a game together with their pretend space cars, sometimes one person might want to make the other person do better than he should.

You're trying to say that it's not a problem for one person to leave the game in order to help the other person, even if the person who leaves tells everyone that's what he's doing.

I said, "But what if the people agreed to do that a long time before they started to play?"

You said, "That's okay, because before they start their day, they don't know which person will do better. Any of those people might get something."

But that means it's still easy for one player to help the other, even when he shouldn't. If my friend and I sit down to play, my friend can say "Hey, I'm playing better than you today. Will you leave our game so I do better?" Now we both know who's going to get something, and it's not me. I don't get anything.

If you think that's okay, then is it still okay if later my friend sits down with someone else we know and asks that person to leave the game, too? And what if he does it again with another friend?

So what you really mean when you say it's okay to do it one time with one person is that it's okay to do it any time, as long as you don't talk about it before you start your game day.

You, and the people that make the game, are both saying that's okay. But it shouldn't be okay!

I have been through this with you before, so I know that you will ignore me when I ask you to quote me when you claim that I said something, but I will gladly admit that I misrepresented what I was attempting to articulate if you can provide the quote.

You never directly said it, no. And yes, we have indeed been over this before: you refuse to own up to the implications of your logic or the consequences of your positions. You're apparently incapable of either induction or generalization--either that, or arguing makes you so happy that you don't care what you're arguing about, and you're willing to say literally anything in order to keep the argument going.

And that's why I won't be responding to you again.

You are making the response into something that it is not.

That is not what the FFG ruling says. The scenario that you described has a trade. It is players agreeing to concede to benefit each other under certain circumstances. What was described to FFG seems to be that one of the players in a game, of their own volition and without provocation, conceded to benefit their opponent. While this is contrary to the idea of competing, it is not, according to FFG's response, against the rules.

Quoting the email from Organized Play:

Collusion is any sort of manufactured result by players in which at least one of the players receives something in return for declaring that outcome.

In the situation I described, what thing am I getting in return for conceding to my friend?

A promise.

So if I travel to a tournament with three strong players, we can all agree beforehand that when we meet, the guy with the worse record/lower MOV will concede. We get a round to relax, eat, and chat, and the player in the better position gets the best possible result... while everyone else is still playing and working their brains with no guarantee of being able to match my friend's "performance". And according to Organized Play, that's not collusion.

The agreement is the trade - the "something in return." In exchange for your friend agreeing to concede if you are doing better than him, you agree to concede if he is doing better than you. This is the difference between the hypothetical that you created and what was actually presented to FFG.

Collusion is any sort of manufactured result by players in which at least one of the players receives something in return for declaring that outcome.

The wording could be more clear, but the distinction is that conceding to benefit another player is acceptable provided that the conceding player does not receive anything in return. FFG responded the way that it did because there can't really be collusion without cooperation between the parties, which there appears not to have been in this case.

There is cooperation though.

The conceding player does so to benefit his friend.

And the friend COOPERATES by signing and submitting the altered results.

the guy from FFG who condoned this should be fired, he doesn't understand sportmanship.

rules are only there to facilitate sportmanship, lawyers can go play in court, not x-wing (no offence to real lawyers who play x-wing, keep playing).

the two guys were friends, right? so all he needed to do was to tell his friend not to concede, and tell the TO that his friend had won even if he had conceded, and that the TO should not accept the concession. anything else is collusion and cheating.

so according to that guy at FFG, the following (admittedly a bit convoluted scenario) seems perfectly OK:

there are 4 strong players in a tournament who are friends with a weak player and they happen to all play a round with him. they all agree to beat everyone and concede to the weak player. the weak player will have 4 undeserved wins and might make it to the cut together with his 4 friends. during the cut they all still concede to him. the weak player has a good chance at placing in the top 3 and even winning the SC.

the FFG guy thinks this is OK!??????

honestly the TO should have just disqualified both without even contacting FFG

And that's why I won't be responding to you again.

No. You will not be responding to me again because you are in too deep. You are making up whatever you have to in order to make it appear that you didn't do the internet equivalent of throwing your hands up in the air and running around in circles yelling because you incorrectly thought that FFG broke the game.

Or maybe I am wrong. You can always quote me proving that I actually said the nonsense that you claimed that I said. Nothing is stopping you.

A concession is a unilateral action. No player can stop another player from conceding. Once that concession is made, provided that there is no intervention from someone with authority to modify the situation (i.e. the TO). There is no cooperation with a concession by the non-conceding player.

if I step into the bank and the teller, who is my friend, puts a million dollar that I do not own in my bag, I technically didn't ask for them and I did not cooperate with them in any way. however I'm pretty sure that if I walk out with the money I'll have a hard time convincing the judge there was no collusion : )

the wins and losses make up the ranks of a tourny and in that sense belong to all players. the guy walked away with an undeserved win without protesting. that's collusion whether concession is a unilateral action or not.

"Technically?" I don't see why that word is used, but it makes the example confusing. You either asked for it, or you did not.

How that is even remotely related is beyond me, but it does show that you are focusing on the wrong thing. You seem to think that whether collusion is perceived matters - it does not. The rules make collusion cheating, they do not make the appearance of collusion cheating.

It is not collusion. Collusion requires two people working together. How did player A, the winner, and player B, the conceding loser, work together?

Maybe the OP said that they did agree to something or that the winner requested that his opponent concede, but I did not see that and I even asked a very adamant individual to point me to it and he did not, so I don't think that the OP did.

Rapture, you seem to agree that the TO should DQ the conceding player. I think he should also have not recorded it as a win to the other guy. I think that in any case, this falls under Unsportsmanlike conduct, for which the TO has broad latitude.

I think not protesting is a kind of collusion, but you disagree. In any case, whether it's collusion or not, it's still unsportmanlike conduct to take the undeserved win.

So it is in the rules:

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 TO, at his sole discretion, may remove players from the tournament for unsportsmanlike conduct.

I would have DQ the conceding player. If the winning player reported the win as x-100 against him but won by concession, I would have given him a choice: take a loss or DQ. If the winning player had reported the win as a concession, no points and no explanation, I would have DQ him as well for unsportmanlike conduct. no need to go into collusion.

the rules do talk about abusing the rules, which is not breaking the rules.

honestly, if the TO just wanted to be nice he should have just talked to the two guys and told them, look, what you did is not cool. you're taking a loss and you can't concede. end of story or you're both DQ.

Rapture, you seem to agree that the TO should DQ the conceding player. I think he should also have not recorded it as a win to the other guy. I think that in any case, this falls under Unsportsmanlike conduct, for which the TO has broad latitude.

I think not protesting is a kind of collusion, but you disagree. In any case, whether it's collusion or not, it's still unsportmanlike conduct to take the undeserved win.

So it is in the rules:

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 TO, at his sole discretion, may remove players from the tournament for unsportsmanlike conduct.

I would have DQ the conceding player. If the winning player reported the win as x-100 against him but won by concession, I would have given him a choice: take a loss or DQ. If the winning player had reported the win as a concession, no points and no explanation, I would have DQ him as well for unsportmanlike conduct. no need to go into collusion.

the rules do talk about abusing the rules, which is not breaking the rules.

honestly, if the TO just wanted to be nice he should have just talked to the two guys and told them, look, what you did is not cool. you're taking a loss and you can't concede. end of story or you're both DQ.

That guy probably should be DQ'ed. While not collusion, he is attempting to manipulate the standing, which I think qualifies as unsportsmanlike conduct.

That said, I think that people are both really reading into the response from FFG and also barely reading it at all. FFG is just saying that the conceding player did not break any rules - which he did not. However, this is a great example of when the TO is not only authorized to remove that player by the rules, but should actually exercise that authority.

I agree with you right up until the TO starts manipulating the scoring. The rules let that player concede, so he conceded. That was unsportsmanlike, so the TO DQ'ed him. But, the TO should not be allowed to manipulate scoring. I am not even sure that a TO has authority based in the rules (I can't look it up right now) to take that kind of action. A player with the same intent can achieve the same result that we are discussing by flying all of their ships off of the board while their opponent has a one hull Decimator trapped in the corner and giving away a win - what consequences would you place on the winner in that scenario? I get that the last ship being destroyed means that we know what the outcome could have been, but it does not sit well with me. Noting illegal happened, so the tournament goes on without the player that the TO, as a proper exercise of his authority, removed.

Finally, DQ'ing a player who is on the receiving end of a concession is inappropriate. The rules clearly state when a player can concede. Punishing one player for what you perceive to be the unsportsmanlike ---but legal--- conduct of another is inappropriate and is only one step above DQ'ing someone because you do not like their shirt.