I wouldn't be entirely surprised to find out that the change was motivated by issues with certain LCGs (i.e. the asymmetric ones) and applied to X-Wing as part of an unthinking 'one size fits all' approach.

That's almost certainly it as far as I can see. They added a rule requiring you to sleeve alt art cards so people can't identify them from their backs a while back. Whoever put that in didn't even read the rules of X-Wing in the first place, let alone know them well enough to write tournament rules for it.

Already addressed your response. I acknowledge that I'm being hypocrite. Doesn't invalidate the post I made.

Whether or not the person saying something is a hypocrite has no bearing on its truth.

I didn't say it makes it untrue, I merely pointed out it leaves you with no credibility.

I'm gonna be so dissapointed if FFG succumbs to this dumb pressure.

Just because something is legal, does not make it moral.

People saying "Hate the game, not the player" really need to step back and engage their critical thinking skills. In certain countries it is legal to stone people to death, or bury them alive. In western countries, it is not illegal to cheat on your boyfriend or girlfriend. Does that make it moral?

You have a responsibility not to just follow the writing on the piece of paper, but to use your own conscience and ethics to make a decision that you believe is morally just. Something is not moral until the day the law is passed against it, at which point it becomes immoral - it has always been immoral, it has just taken the legal system a while to get their act together and litigate against it. Beating your wife and children was immoral before the laws for domestic abuse were enshrined, for example.

You are not a robot following a script. You are a human being with the capability of governing your own ethical actions. Act like it.

You have a responsibility not to just follow the writing on the piece of paper, but to use your own conscience and ethics to make a decision that you believe is morally just.

They do. I know it's hard for all of you people on your high **** horses but please, try to imagine that somebody else can have different ethics and morals and not be the devil himself at the same time. People have different sense of whats wrong and whats right. THAT is what rules are for. So that everybody has to follow them no matter what their opinion is. This rule is not forcing you to forsake your ideals, it just allows other people not to be bound by them.

You have a responsibility not to just follow the writing on the piece of paper, but to use your own conscience and ethics to make a decision that you believe is morally just.

They do. I know it's hard for all of you people on your high **** horses but please, try to imagine that somebody else can have different ethics and morals and not be the devil himself at the same time. People have different sense of whats wrong and whats right. THAT is what rules are for. So that everybody has to follow them no matter what their opinion is. This rule is not forcing you to forsake your ideals, it just allows other people not to be bound by them.

So their conscience led them to undertake behaviour that many would consider unsportsman like. Fine; that's their decision. But many of us feel that decision flies in the face of the spirit of the game and competitive play more generally, and was a poor decision to make.

Of course as an addendum to the above post, you then have a responsibility to defend the ethicality of your actions when challenged. And so far there has been no defence apart from "The law says I can do it" (which we have already established is not a moral justification) and "Someone else did it", which is also not a valid defence.

Just because someone takes an action they believe to be right, does not entitle them to be free of criticism. No-one goes into the situation thinking "I'm going to be an evil bastard here" - they may just make mistakes. But if no-one ever pulls you up and forces you to re-evaluate your mistakes, there is no way to learn from them.

You have a responsibility not to just follow the writing on the piece of paper, but to use your own conscience and ethics to make a decision that you believe is morally just.

They do. I know it's hard for all of you people on your high **** horses but please, try to imagine that somebody else can have different ethics and morals and not be the devil himself at the same time. People have different sense of whats wrong and whats right. THAT is what rules are for. So that everybody has to follow them no matter what their opinion is. This rule is not forcing you to forsake your ideals, it just allows other people not to be bound by them.

So their conscience led them to undertake behaviour that many would consider unsportsman like. Fine; that's their decision. But many of us feel that decision flies in the face of the spirit of the game and competitive play more generally, and was a poor decision to make.

And that is fine as long as you dont start a witchhunt. Because there is no way to actually say that your definition of sportsmanlike behaviour is better. It's all subjective.

To me sportsmalike behaviour in x-wing is following the rules, being kind to your opponent (this doesnt mean that I wont fly you off the table if you choose a red move while stressed on a store+ tournament), being precise (it's what pissed me off the most, people doing their manouvers not precisely, and saying fly casual when I mention this, yet somehow the error in the move always helps them a little bit) and playing at a normal pace (slow players shall burn in hell one day).

And while some of you may have a different definition, the lack of tolerance of different opinion is the problem here.

Can't say I really care for the new ID rule. It seems like it's causing a heap of uproar and problems for little to no benefit. After almost two years of competitive X-wing I can't say I've ever seen the old 'intentionally don't shoot each other' or 'lets both fly all our ships off the board together' that people claim this rule fixes.

But if we really have to keep this rule it seems like the easiest fix would be to make an 'Intentional Draw' give zero tournament points, rather than one. That way people on the top table (who wouldn't be eliminated even if they lose) can take an ID and relax/twiddle their thumbs for an hour while everyone else has fun. Win-win, everyone's happy.

Personally I don't get it. I like to win, but I also like to actually play.

Of course as an addendum to the above post, you then have a responsibility to defend the ethicality of your actions when challenged. And so far there has been no defence apart from "The law says I can do it" (which we have already established is not a moral justification) and "Someone else did it", which is also not a valid defence.

Just because someone takes an action they believe to be right, does not entitle them to be free of criticism. No-one goes into the situation thinking "I'm going to be an evil bastard here" - they may just make mistakes. But if no-one ever pulls you up and forces you to re-evaluate your mistakes, there is no way to learn from them.

No, actually nobody has a responsibility to defend their ethics. You can always choose to not care what others think

But do you (I'm adressing this to the haters not you personally) have a moral right to accuse people and talk *** like I've seen here? Publicly shame pheaver for having different morals? That does not look like falying casual to me.

You have a responsibility not to just follow the writing on the piece of paper, but to use your own conscience and ethics to make a decision that you believe is morally just.

They do. I know it's hard for all of you people on your high **** horses but please, try to imagine that somebody else can have different ethics and morals and not be the devil himself at the same time. People have different sense of whats wrong and whats right. THAT is what rules are for. So that everybody has to follow them no matter what their opinion is. This rule is not forcing you to forsake your ideals, it just allows other people not to be bound by them.

So their conscience led them to undertake behaviour that many would consider unsportsman like. Fine; that's their decision. But many of us feel that decision flies in the face of the spirit of the game and competitive play more generally, and was a poor decision to make.

And that is fine as long as you dont start a witchhunt. Because there is no way to actually say that your definition of sportsmanlike behaviour is better. It's all subjective.

To me, that is just as much of a moral cop out as the above defences. Would you watch someone abuse another person and do nothing because "It is all subjective"? How empirical does immorality have to become before you stand up and object?

From a purely utilitarian and/or democratic point of view then they were wrong - the greatest happiness for the greatest number, and the majority consensus are the two main ways we decide what it "Right" and by both of those measures, the decision to ID an entire tournament to lock out other participants is morally wrong.

No matter what you think the effect was on that one Regional tournament (or the Hoth open, for that matter), I think it's pretty hard to deny what a terrible effect this ruling has had one the community, and that's the real shame. The integrity of one tournament -- of any tournament -- is important (inasmuch as anything about this game is 'important,' I guess), but the nastiness it's brought out, and the split it's caused in the game's community itself (as best personified by our Worlds champions and how they're talking to and about one another) has just been toxic.

That attitude, that backlash, is worse for the game than any ruling by itself could possibly be.

Just because something is legal, does not make it moral.

People saying "Hate the game, not the player" really need to step back and engage their critical thinking skills. In certain countries it is legal to stone people to death, or bury them alive. In western countries, it is not illegal to cheat on your boyfriend or girlfriend. Does that make it moral?

You have a responsibility not to just follow the writing on the piece of paper, but to use your own conscience and ethics to make a decision that you believe is morally just. Something is not moral until the day the law is passed against it, at which point it becomes immoral - it has always been immoral, it has just taken the legal system a while to get their act together and litigate against it. Beating your wife and children was immoral before the laws for domestic abuse were enshrined, for example.

Good to make a comparisons between a game and thing's that can have a real life consequences because losing a game and being stoned to death should be on an equal level.

When I use my own critical thinking I know ID's are bad because they are not suited in this game and shouldn't be allowed for all the reasons listed in the last 28 pages. But I would never question anyone for following a bad rule. Its still a rule. and this is still a game if you want change fill the FFG inbox with complaints. I hate what the top 8 did but they have every right to do so and I would never attack them personally

as said above hate the game not the players

You are not a robot following a script. You are a human being with the capability of governing your own ethical actions. Act like it.

every part of our lives is filled with systems and procedures to make us act like robots. From systems at work, roads with signal's and signs telling us where to go what to do, advertising telling us what to buy, education systems that say stay in school go to university get a degree in free thinking rock up debt doing so then get a job a McDonalds follow a system and pay off your student loan the rest of your life. and don't even get me started on the systems government have that you need to follow to if you need something from them.

Is it really any wonder why people follow rules as written?

Given that they operated as a cartel, the only fitting punishment for the Roanoke 8 is to make them fly cartel spacers and only cartel spacers. Forever!

You have a responsibility not to just follow the writing on the piece of paper, but to use your own conscience and ethics to make a decision that you believe is morally just.

They do. I know it's hard for all of you people on your high **** horses but please, try to imagine that somebody else can have different ethics and morals and not be the devil himself at the same time. People have different sense of whats wrong and whats right. THAT is what rules are for. So that everybody has to follow them no matter what their opinion is. This rule is not forcing you to forsake your ideals, it just allows other people not to be bound by them.

So their conscience led them to undertake behaviour that many would consider unsportsman like. Fine; that's their decision. But many of us feel that decision flies in the face of the spirit of the game and competitive play more generally, and was a poor decision to make.

And that is fine as long as you dont start a witchhunt. Because there is no way to actually say that your definition of sportsmanlike behaviour is better. It's all subjective.

To me, that is just as much of a moral cop out as the above defences. Would you watch someone abuse another person and do nothing because "It is all subjective"? How empirical does immorality have to become before you stand up and object?

From a purely utilitarian and/or democratic point of view then they were wrong - the greatest happiness for the greatest number, and the majority consensus are the two main ways we decide what it "Right" and by both of those measures, the decision to ID an entire tournament to lock out other participants is morally wrong.

Well it's hard to compare actual physical violence to rules used in plastic ships competition. Same moral rules don't apply to everything.

As for the greates number argument. You do know that unhappy customers are the ones that are loudest right? People posting here are not representative of the whole community.

Given that they operated as a cartel, the only fitting punishment for the Roanoke 8 is to make them fly cartel spacers and only cartel spacers. Forever!

but then a fix comes out and they will be unbeatably

I don't have time to read a 28 page thread so apologies if I am re-treading old ground here. Here is the rule for intentional draws, in full, from the X-Wing tournament rules. Emphasis added by me.

During Swiss rounds, players may intentionally draw a game so long as a leader is present for any discussion between players prior to the agreement. The leader’s presence is required to prevent any breach of the tournament’s integrity. The leader will not intervene as long as players follow the “Unsporting Conduct” guidelines on page 4. If two players intentionally draw a game, each player receives 1 tournament point and a Margin of Victory of 100, just as if they were to arrive at a natural draw over the course of play.

Here is the rule for Unsportsmanlike Conduct, in full, emphasis added by me.

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, inappropriate behavior, treating an opponent with a lack of courtesy or respect, cheating, etc. Collusion among players to manipulate scoring is expressly forbidden. Players cannot reference outside material or information during a round. However, players may reference official rule documents at any time or ask a judge for clarification from official rule documents. The organizer, at his or her sole discretion, may remove players from the tournament for unsportsmanlike conduct.

My understanding is that an intentional draw is only allowed if it is not being used to deliberately manipulate scoring. The examples being complained about are quite clearly using intentional draws to manipulate scoring. Am I reading this completing differently to everyone else??? Why are TOs allowing this? They have it within their power to say no to these people as it is against the rules.

My understanding was that the intentional draw exists so that players can choose not to play the game if they have a good, non-score-related reason for doing so. Examples:

1) Father and son paired. Neither wants to beat the other due to their relationship. They choose to take the intentional draw to not cause potential complications in their home life.

2) Delays in tournament organisation mean that two hungry players won't get enough time to eat lunch if their game goes to time and, due to the lists involved, the game is likely to go to time. They choose to take the intentional draw and go eat.

3) Two players are paired where neither has the chance to make the cut. Neither wants to concede for reasons of pride but both would rather go home early than play out another game. They choose to take the intentional draw and leave an hour early, pride intact.

It honestly comes down to this, "Be the change you want." If you say you are against the rule, then actively take part, you are not against it. All parties involved, the players, the TO, and most importantly FFG are all to blame. You can not seperated one from the other in this situation, especially when the players in question are supposedly so against it. Personally, I have no qualms with IDs, if the draw that occurs from it is assigned a 0 tournament point result. Why? Because if you are in as secure enough position to do so, it should not affect the outcome of the results of others. How it is right now, and honestly have no problems saying this even to their face, is a cowards way out to achieve a higher tournament placement. I understand were they are coming from, but if you don't want the ruling to be there, don't benefit from it.

Also let's all drop the fly casual arguement. That was a failed attempt at selling shirts and then trying to make it a elitest club. The originator himself being one of the farthest things from what he spouts. Personally, this to Heaver, your little tentrum tantrum, 100% reasonable, completely unprofessional. While you might not be the Messiah of X-wing, the world does watch how you act. You chose that spot light by continuing to have a presence in the tournament scene, and regardless if you want it or not, you are an ambassador to this game.

My understanding was that the intentional draw exists so that players can choose not to play the game if they have a good, non-score-related reason for doing so. Examples:

1) Father and son paired. Neither wants to beat the other due to their relationship. They choose to take the intentional draw to not cause potential complications in their home life.

2) Delays in tournament organisation mean that two hungry players won't get enough time to eat lunch if their game goes to time and, due to the lists involved, the game is likely to go to time. They choose to take the intentional draw and go eat.

3) Two players are paired where neither has the chance to make the cut. Neither wants to concede for reasons of pride but both would rather go home early than play out another game. They choose to take the intentional draw and leave an hour early, pride intact.

I'm even fine for the top 4, who had no chance of not getting through the cut, taking the opportunity to take a break. I mean, they did earn it. It's the next batch of people who were vulnerable to dropping out of the cut that rubs me the wrong way (in terms of rules, that is, the moral argument is neither here nor there imo).

Just because something is legal, does not make it moral.

Morals are completely subjective and vary from individual to individual. It has no real bearing in regards to if what they did was following the rules. Whether you think what they did is right or wrong is up to each individual to figure out on their own and in the grand scheme doesn't matter.

it's what pissed me off the most, people doing their manouvers not precisely, and saying fly casual when I mention this

Again, that is absolutely not what Fly Casual means. People like that are extremists and do not represent the true movement. Do Fly Casual and X-Wing as a whole a favour and call those people out and call a TO over.

it's what pissed me off the most, people doing their manouvers not precisely, and saying fly casual when I mention this

Again, that is absolutely not what Fly Casual means. People like that are extremists and do not represent the true movement. Do Fly Casual and X-Wing as a whole a favour and call those people out and call a TO over.

No true scotsman eh?

"Militant casual" term covers enough people who do indeed say "fly casual" . It is a generalisation but it works well enough, just in this thread there is people calling for bans of people, who call the 8 people disgusting, immoral, the worst thing happening to x-wing community and such.

It is also weird that anti-ID crowd includes some people who say, "if you don't want to play and take ID, why are you in a tournament"

and people who say, "only if you can't make the cut you should be allowed to ID and you should not be forced to play games". Such diverse opinions supporting a similar position.

ID=Bush League.

The next X-wing tournament that I participate in will be the first tournament since the addition of ID. If ID is used to screw players out of being able to advance then that will be the last X-wing tournament that I attend.

IDs are only acceptible in situations where the rankings aren't altered by the outcome of the ID or a normal win/loss. I know FFG botched it at the Hoth Open, but if players can use ID to deny other players the chance to advance in a tournament then that is the end of X-wing.

it's what pissed me off the most, people doing their manouvers not precisely, and saying fly casual when I mention this

Again, that is absolutely not what Fly Casual means. People like that are extremists and do not represent the true movement. Do Fly Casual and X-Wing as a whole a favour and call those people out and call a TO over.

I realize that that this in not what fly casual is supposed to mean, But this is how most folks interpret it.