If not, then scores are being manipulated - which is against the rules.

The problem with your logic is that FFG makes the rules, and can change them when they want to. Which is what the whole ID thing seems to be. They are changing the rules and saying that taking a ID even if that means you're locked into the top 8 is fine.

As a TO, I will say this. Being full set against the rule. But enforcement of them being my responsibility. And I follow the organization rules meticulously. If you come to me asking to draw, I will challenge you to prove to me that you have not discussed it before coming to me. Which I would only be justified in doing. If you are successful in that case I will examine the standings to determine if there is even a remote opportunity for you to be displaced from your rank, and if so disallow the draw as obviously I can't let you change the results of the tournament. So until it's revoked, I will enforce the rules. Most critically. If it's not revoked The Guardtower may need a new TO for their X-wing events.

See, this is what should have happened. Paul (and 1, possibly 2 others) would not have slipped from the top 8 regardless, but the others were indeed in danger of losing their spot to someone from below the final round top 8. This is where the mistake was made and the rules not followed (de facto cheating). Anyone with any chance whatsoever of not making the cut should have not been allowed to take the ID.

That is the crux of my issue with the whole thing.

I hope I never play at a tournament where that guy is a TO.

Nobody has any responsibility to anyone other than themselves and their opponent in any given game. It is not a player's responsibility to think about the people on the bubble.

Doing the math on who might be in jeopardy and who might not is overcomplicating the situation. There are two simple solutions:

1) Do the correct amount of Swiss rounds.

2) Don't allow IDs

Slightly more complicated: change the tournament style.

Terrible idea: let random TOs make arbitrary decisions on what constitutes a "legal" Intentional Draw.

As to bolded point 1: The TO totally has responsibility. To everyone in the tournament to make sure that it is ran and played in equal fairness to everyone in attendance. I think that might be in the job description.

Bolded point 2: The decision is not arbitrary. The TO posting (ForceSensitive) laid out a clear and concise sequence, which I agree with and which follows the Organized Play rules. This is exactly the kind of TO I would play under and, if he would have been in charge over this past weekend, the kind who would not have allowed the situation that has the community up in arms (on both sides) to have occurred and to turn into the mess it is.

Doing the math on who might be in jeopardy and who might not is overcomplicating the situation. There are two simple solutions:

1) Do the correct amount of Swiss rounds.

2) Don't allow IDs

Slightly more complicated: change the tournament style.

Terrible idea: let random TOs make arbitrary decisions on what constitutes a "legal" Intentional Draw.

Note that the "correct" number of Swiss rounds for most tournament systems is the number that creates a clear first place winner, not one that gives a clean cut to players with a certain record. It would be easy to just get rid of IDs and elimination rounds at the same time and play until the natural Swiss conclusion.

Right, but this is Swiss with a cut. There will rarely be a "clean cut" because there are more options than win/loss/draw.

I wouldn't be opposed to pure Swiss. I wouldn't be opposed to double elimination. I'm not opposed to IDs either, but the number of rounds needs to be the correct amount for swiss/cut to T8.

As a TO, I will say this. Being full set against the rule. But enforcement of them being my responsibility. And I follow the organization rules meticulously. If you come to me asking to draw, I will challenge you to prove to me that you have not discussed it before coming to me. Which I would only be justified in doing. If you are successful in that case I will examine the standings to determine if there is even a remote opportunity for you to be displaced from your rank, and if so disallow the draw as obviously I can't let you change the results of the tournament. So until it's revoked, I will enforce the rules. Most critically. If it's not revoked The Guardtower may need a new TO for their X-wing events.

See, this is what should have happened. Paul (and 1, possibly 2 others) would not have slipped from the top 8 regardless, but the others were indeed in danger of losing their spot to someone from below the final round top 8. This is where the mistake was made and the rules not followed (de facto cheating). Anyone with any chance whatsoever of not making the cut should have not been allowed to take the ID.

That is the crux of my issue with the whole thing.

I hope I never play at a tournament where that guy is a TO.

Nobody has any responsibility to anyone other than themselves and their opponent in any given game. It is not a player's responsibility to think about the people on the bubble.

Doing the math on who might be in jeopardy and who might not is overcomplicating the situation. There are two simple solutions:

1) Do the correct amount of Swiss rounds.

2) Don't allow IDs

Slightly more complicated: change the tournament style.

Terrible idea: let random TOs make arbitrary decisions on what constitutes a "legal" Intentional Draw.

As to bolded point 1: The TO totally has responsibility. To everyone in the tournament to make sure that it is ran and played in equal fairness to everyone in attendance. I think that might be in the job description.

Bolded point 2: The decision is not arbitrary. The TO posting (ForceSensitive) laid out a clear and concise sequence, which I agree with and which follows the Organized Play rules. This is exactly the kind of TO I would play under and, if he would have been in charge over this past weekend, the kind who would not have allowed the situation that has the community up in arms (on both sides) to have occurred and to turn into the mess it is.

1) You know what I mean, that as a player in a tournament you don't have a responsibility for worrying about the bubble.

2) It is too arbitrary. ForceSensitive is using his TO privilege of making judgement calls entirely too liberally in his definition of manipulation of tournament standings, collusion, and drawing. It wouldn't have been this mess if there was one less Swiss round. You are focusing on the wrong thing because it fits your bias against IDs.

To everyone in the tournament to make sure that it is ran and played in equal fairness to everyone in attendance.

What is fair, is really defined by the rules, that everyone is playing by the same rules. So as long as ID is part of the rules that makes it more or by default fair. Since it is an option to everyone.

The TO posting (ForceSensitive) laid out a clear and concise sequence, which I agree with and which follows the Organized Play rules.

No actually it doesn't follow the OP rules, since the OP rules actually allows people to use ID to lock their standing in if they so chose.

We can debate if being able to do so is a good or bad idea, but the fact that it's allowed by the rules really isn't at question here.

Sorry, don't want a ton of quote windows so - to the above replies:

I get it, though I see things as a little more within the control of the TO. And I do not blame the players (nearly) as much as I blame FFG OP. This is a bad rule and is open to (obviously) being taken advantage of, to the detriment of the event. It's not like FFG hasn't made some bad rules before and did a total 180 on it. Play mats, for example?

Were the players within their rights to take the ID? Sure, as long as at no point prior to calling the TO over hearing the discussion about the ID did they discuss nor even mention to one another the possibility of this series of events occurring (even a casual mentioning in passing). Anything short of that is collusion and is expressly forbidden and constitutes cheating. I find it very difficult to believe not one player huddled around the posted ranking sheet got it in their head prior to stepping up to the table that they should draw and make the cut, nor mentioned it to their opponent before the TO was present. Very difficult indeed....

Intentional Draws affect more than just that game, and this past weekend proves that point. There were 1-3 players who very easily could have made the cut with a win, but that was not even a possibility because (by virtue of all the IDs) the scores were set (manipulated) before the outcome of those games were determined. There was no need nor any reason for the players outside the predetermined IDed top 8 to even play their games (in regards to the cut standings) so why did anyone bother playing that last round? In the entire event? So you could say you finished 18th instead of 23rd? Please, don't even.

And while I was amused by the post the guy in 9th-10th place put up decrying all the uproar, I don't believe he would rather have gone out just out of the cut because of all the IDs than made the cut and played more and had a chance for winning the event.

See, I don't have a problem with IDs per say nor their holding of places. As long as the win/loss outcome of that game does not affect the overall standings of the event.

Edit: My problem with IDs was epitomized this past weekend. Players who are in danger of losing their place in the cut with a loss to someone who would make the cut with a win should not be allowed to take an ID. And FFG allowing this is bad, bad, bad. Shame on them.

I think we can all agree that, if IDs continue to be allowed, there needs to be some serious tightening of those rules.

All I know of Paul and Doug is what I've heard on podcasts, and they both seem like pretty great guys. It would really stink if they couldn't find a way to get past all of this.

I might not agree with it and hope that if ever I was in a similar position to use an ID that I'd be able to resist, but I can totally understand why those who needed an extra point to secure their position did so.

What I do find offensive though is the fact some players already had a secure place and still chose the ID. That's not playing competitively, that's using your position to choose who gets through and who doesn't. Sorry Player A, I don't want you in the Top 8, I want Player B.

99% of the time, the intentional draw will be used by those who already are in the cut. This situation is far, far from normal. See how there is no uproar over the top table taking one in NM.

I might not agree with it and hope that if ever I was in a similar position to use an ID that I'd be able to resist, but I can totally understand why those who needed an extra point to secure their position did so.

What I do find offensive though is the fact some players already had a secure place and still chose the ID. That's not playing competitively, that's using your position to choose who gets through and who doesn't. Sorry Player A, I don't want you in the Top 8, I want Player B.

For me it's the opposite: Those who have their spots locked down regardless should be the ones to take the ID - they've earned their spot in the cut already. Those who are not in no matter what happens are the ones who should be playing; earning their places as well. If someone in the top loses and someone just below wins I think we can all see who truly earned their place in the cut.

No news yet from FFG, the tourney rep must be trying to figure out what to do

Did non of the drawn games have a player who was definitely through and another who wasn't?

99% of the time, the intentional draw will be used by those who already are in the cut. This situation is far, far from normal. See how there is no uproar over the top table taking one in NM.

the only time i was considering a ID was before the rule was put in to play. last round of swiss me and the other undefeated played each other, cut to top 8, LITERALLY NO WAY EITHER OF US WERE GETTING OUT OF THE CUT. i joked " well if i just hard 2 off the board you wont know my strategy when we meet in the finals." to which he replied "thats not a bad idea, keep the mystique in the list"

we ended up playing, i ended up winning that game, as well as the rematch. so did it matter? no, but neither did that last round of swiss for either of us, all it did was show me how he flies, and show him how i fly. to which he flew and i flew much for agressively against each other in the second meeting.

Did non of the drawn games have a player who was definitely through and another who wasn't?

It is tough to tell, because we don't know what their MOV would be if they had played their games.

To everyone in the tournament to make sure that it is ran and played in equal fairness to everyone in attendance.

What is fair, is really defined by the rules, that everyone is playing by the same rules. So as long as ID is part of the rules that makes it more or by default fair. Since it is an option to everyone.

What? Not at all. If the rules said:

"After deployment, check your opponent's name. If their name is 'Jeff,' select one of their ships and remove it from play treating it as destroyed."

You think that X-Wing would be fair if that was in the rules?

Did non of the drawn games have a player who was definitely through and another who wasn't?

It is tough to tell, because we don't know what their MOV would be if they had played their games.

Ah fair enough. Anyway to clarify, if both players where an ID is called are definitely through, then yeah fine that's not a problem. The issue for me is if 1 player is definitely through and the other isn't. That for me is a clear example of the definitely through player fixing who he wants to be in the Top 8.

Rampant hyperbole doesn't help make your point.

Did non of the drawn games have a player who was definitely through and another who wasn't?

There was at a minimum a potential for some to slide and be replaced, which should have been enough to force the games to be played. I am sure at least one or two would not have made the cut. There is a post somewhere else that stated had things been played out there was a player who was just out to have climbed to the 6th spot.

It's not like FFG hasn't made some bad rules before and did a total 180 on it.

Sure and I think most of us would like to see them do something like that here. But until they do this is how tournaments work.

Anything short of that is collusion and is expressly forbidden and constitutes cheating.

But again, what is considered collusion has apparently changed.

Did non of the drawn games have a player who was definitely through and another who wasn't?

It is tough to tell, because we don't know what their MOV would be if they had played their games.

Ah fair enough. Anyway to clarify, if both players where an ID is called are definitely through, then yeah fine that's not a problem. The issue for me is if 1 player is definitely through and the other isn't. That for me is a clear example of the definitely through player fixing who he wants to be in the Top 8.

I mean, the top table was all but certain in. It was the tables 2-4 that was the issue. I don't see this being able to happen too often, because one more or one less 4-1 player would've made it a very, very bad idea to take an intentional draw if you were at table 2-4. Sadly, this point continues to get lost.

To everyone in the tournament to make sure that it is ran and played in equal fairness to everyone in attendance.

What is fair, is really defined by the rules, that everyone is playing by the same rules. So as long as ID is part of the rules that makes it more or by default fair. Since it is an option to everyone.

The TO posting (ForceSensitive) laid out a clear and concise sequence, which I agree with and which follows the Organized Play rules.

No actually it doesn't follow the OP rules, since the OP rules actually allows people to use ID to lock their standing in if they so chose.

We can debate if being able to do so is a good or bad idea, but the fact that it's allowed by the rules really isn't at question here.

This isn't true. OP rules allow people to use IDs if they don't violate the unsporting section. That is it.

The precedent from Hoth is what allows people to use ID to lock in their standing. Nowhere in the rules does it say you can use ID in this way. In fact, it specifically references that it can't violate the Unsporting section, and I think it is at least up for debate whether it does or does not.

If we want to argue letter of the law "rules", then those rules in no way make clear that you can use IDs to lock your standing. What people use to justify that is the "Hoth precedent".

Precedents are as valid as email rules clarifications. Which is to say, not applicable at all until they are actually in the rules.

I'm pretty tired of hearing people talk like this is clear as day allowable in the rules. It is not clear...AT ALL. In fact, without the "Hoth precedent", the rules seem to indicate exactly the opposite of the way it has been done.

99% of the time, the intentional draw will be used by those who already are in the cut. This situation is far, far from normal. See how there is no uproar over the top table taking one in NM.

the only time i was considering a ID was before the rule was put in to play. last round of swiss me and the other undefeated played each other, cut to top 8, LITERALLY NO WAY EITHER OF US WERE GETTING OUT OF THE CUT. i joked " well if i just hard 2 off the board you wont know my strategy when we meet in the finals." to which he replied "thats not a bad idea, keep the mystique in the list"

we ended up playing, i ended up winning that game, as well as the rematch. so did it matter?

99% of the time, the intentional draw will be used by those who already are in the cut. This situation is far, far from normal. See how there is no uproar over the top table taking one in NM.

This is an exaggeration. The only times it will happen that the people taking it are already in the cut are

a) The players are both undefeated and all x-1 players will make the cut.

b) Both players MoV (or other tie-breaker if the tie breaker was changed) are such that even with a 0-100 loss by them and 100-0 wins by the players with 1 more loss than them means that they're guaranteed to win the tie-breaker and make the cut no matter what.

There's a lot of situations (well over 1%, including at hoth open I believe, and definitely at roanoke) where a draw guarantees you make it in, but a loss could result in not making it due to tie-breakers.

To everyone in the tournament to make sure that it is ran and played in equal fairness to everyone in attendance.

What is fair, is really defined by the rules, that everyone is playing by the same rules. So as long as ID is part of the rules that makes it more or by default fair. Since it is an option to everyone.

The TO posting (ForceSensitive) laid out a clear and concise sequence, which I agree with and which follows the Organized Play rules.

No actually it doesn't follow the OP rules, since the OP rules actually allows people to use ID to lock their standing in if they so chose.

We can debate if being able to do so is a good or bad idea, but the fact that it's allowed by the rules really isn't at question here.

This isn't true. OP rules allow people to use IDs if they don't violate the unsporting section. That is it.

The precedent from Hoth is what allows people to use ID to lock in their standing. Nowhere in the rules does it say you can use ID in this way. In fact, it specifically references that it can't violate the Unsporting section, and I think it is at least up for debate whether it does or does not.

If we want to argue letter of the law "rules", then those rules in no way make clear that you can use IDs to lock your standing. What people use to justify that is the "Hoth precedent".

Precedents are as valid as email rules clarifications. Which is to say, not applicable at all until they are actually in the rules.

I'm pretty tired of hearing people talk like this is clear as day allowable in the rules. It is not clear...AT ALL. In fact, without the "Hoth precedent", the rules seem to indicate exactly the opposite of the way it has been done.

Exactly my thoughts and feelings, and I was just about to point out that very fact RE: the rules do not make an allowance for 'holding your place in the cut".

And, if we want to go by what the rules say and lay some interpretation on it, don't the rules say that no outside sources may be referenced? Is that not what citing the "Hoth Precedent" is doing?

99% of the time, the intentional draw will be used by those who already are in the cut. This situation is far, far from normal. See how there is no uproar over the top table taking one in NM.

the only time i was considering a ID was before the rule was put in to play. last round of swiss me and the other undefeated played each other, cut to top 8, LITERALLY NO WAY EITHER OF US WERE GETTING OUT OF THE CUT. i joked " well if i just hard 2 off the board you wont know my strategy when we meet in the finals." to which he replied "thats not a bad idea, keep the mystique in the list"

we ended up playing, i ended up winning that game, as well as the rematch. so did it matter?

If it has in impact on the future, then it matters. Whether you are the 1st or 5th player in the last seed matters for both you, your opponent in the last round of swiss, and you potential opponents in the elimination rounds.

Another point I was ninja'd on: Cut seeding is affected by ID shenanigans as well.

Rampant hyperbole doesn't help make your point.

But that's all he really has going for him. I mean honestly without that or twisting what other people said, he wouldn't have anything to post.