Pop quiz

Who below said the following

"Yes, it is not good thing to do what I did, but the rules allow it so it's completely legal"

- Banker/ Accountant

- Defence Lawyer

- X wing tournament player.

For the record, defense attorney does not belong on that list. A defense attorney must zealously defend the client, for reasons that range from the legal to the philosophical underpinnings of an adversarial justice system.

The only choice a defense attorney has, when it comes to doing something unpleasant-but-legal, is quit ... and not even that is always an option. (And it's rarely a good option, again given the philosophical underpinnings of adversarial justice.)

And, if we want to go by what the rules say and lay some interpretation on it...

If we want to do that, then the TO's decision is final. So if the TO allows people to use ID's then that's the end of it. The only people who can say anything about it is FFG.

I personally don't care for the ID rule as it seems to being used. But that's the fault of FFG not the TO, or the players. But again if we want to be sticklers for RAW here, then the TO has the final decision about what is or isn't collusion.

"The Hoth Precedent" is a good name for a band.

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.

Yes, most time, the top table will be able to take an intentional draw and both still get in. But that isn't what happened in VA. The situation for the top 4 tables to take an intentional draw and all make the cut is going to be far rarer. And that is why there is an uproar. Seeing as there wasn't much of one over Adepticon or the NM Regional.

Pop quiz

Who below said the following

"Yes, it is not good thing to do what I did, but the rules allow it so it's completely legal"

- Banker/ Accountant

- Defence Lawyer

- X wing tournament player.

For the record, defense attorney does not belong on that list. A defense attorney must zealously defend the client, for reasons that range from the legal to the philosophical underpinnings of an adversarial justice system.

The only choice a defense attorney has, when it comes to doing something unpleasant-but-legal, is quit ... and not even that is always an option. (And it's rarely a good option, again given the philosophical underpinnings of adversarial justice.)

then lets change it to Public Prosecutor

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 can hold whatever ethics you want, so long as you never act on them. As soon as you act on your beliefs and that action affects other people, they have the right to ask you to justify them. Thus we have courts that require people to defend their actions. Otherwise you could say "Brah, stabbing him in the neck is just what my ethics said - you can't naysay me".

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?

If you can't tell the difference between arguing against an example and arguing against a point, I can't be bothered talking to you. I'm not attributing moral equivalency to the two actions, don't be absurd. I am saying that you cannot dismiss complaints about someone's behaviour based on "You're not allowed to question them because it's their opinion, and opinions can't be wrong". Opinions can be wrong, just like anything else.

Your second argument seems to be that because you work in a morally empty system, it is acceptable to act in a morally empty fashion. That being the case, we can never attribute blame to anyone working for a criminal organisation - because they are living within an immoral environment, and therefore cannot exert their own sense of morality. Which is nonsense. You always have a choice.

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.

Likewise Slanesh, if you can't distinguish between an example and a rationale, I'm not going to waste time replying to you.

Regarding greatest numbers, I was talking about the other 32 players at the event. Let's say the TO had stood up on a chair, and shouted out "These 8 players want to lock all of you out of the final round by all taking IDs, I want a show of hands to show who supports this". Who do you think would have been in favour of that? I'm pretty sure the vote would have been something close to 32-8 AGAINST.

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.

Morals are not completely subjective - all societies that ever exist do so due to the ability to reach moral consensus about what is and is not morally acceptable. Morality is not a unique and special snowflake that is precious and correct and equally valuable to all people. Some people are less moral than others. Some people are more morally correct than others, as shown by their actions towards others. For example denying other people their right to compete in order to gain prizes, because you want those prizes yourself, I would see as harming someone else purely for your own benefit, which from most people's frame of reference is an immoral act.

Again, stop with the lazy thinking. People can BELIEVE whatever they want in the privacy of their own head. However as soon as they act on their beliefs in a way that affects others, then they become open to challenge - because you need to justify your actions to the person you have affected. For example, if 10yr old me thinks my sister is annoying, and I stamp on her toe, she and my parents have the right to question why I took that action, and if my reasons do not withstand rational debate then I am morally wrong, and I need to adjust my beliefs or cease to take actions based on them.

Likewise, the actions taken by the top 8 (and in fact the judges, who have an obligation of care for all players) affected people other than themselves. They prevented the other 32 players from competing in a fair and free environment. They made the choice to invoke the rule in the rulebook, when they were under NO OBLIGATION TO. They could have just played every game, like every player has done since the release of Wave 1, in every tournament, ever.

They chose not to. They decided that making it into the top 8 was more important than allowing all other players to have an equal chance of making it into the top 8 by beating them. That has a result on the other players, and so the other players have an absolute right to demand a rational and moral explanation from them. Stop with the "You can't question someone else's decision" crap.

On the other hand I will happily agree that insults solve nothing. So that's why I'm not using terms like "sack of dicks" because it contributes nothing to the discussion.

You do know, that mathematically, that they only prevented a handful of players from having a chance of the cut. It is at least a bit cleaner than using tiebreakers.

And, if we want to go by what the rules say and lay some interpretation on it...

If we want to do that, then the TO's decision is final. So if the TO allows people to use ID's then that's the end of it. The only people who can say anything about it is FFG.

I personally don't care for the ID rule as it seems to being used. But that's the fault of FFG not the TO, or the players. But again if we want to be sticklers for RAW here, then the TO has the final decision about what is or isn't collusion.

I'm with you here, 100%. It's not the idea or even 'correct' implementation of IDs I have a problem with - it's the manipulatory (new word, yay me lol) manner in which they seem to be being used. "Correct" apparently is open to interpretation, which I side with ForceSensitive as I quoted earlier in that they should only be allowed if they do not affect event standings. To do otherwise would be allowing a manipulation of the scores, which is expressly forbidden.

You do know, that mathematically, that they only prevented a handful of players from having a chance of the cut. It is at least a bit cleaner than using tiebreakers.

I don't think so. Preventing players from making the cut through shenanigans is bad, be that one or many.

A bit cleaner? How so? By giving the non-ID below the cut players no chance to win their way in? That is nonsense. And if it falls to even records and MOV being the tie-breaker is that not still putting someone in the cut who earned it?

Anybody care to lay out the "Hoth precedent" for us? I have heard murmurings, but I'm not sure what the actual situation was nor how it may or may not have impacted other players.

Even just a link would do.

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.

The issue with the Hoth Draw is that it was overseen by FFG OP, the people that implemented the rule. So, that should clear up any ambiguity of whether this is a case of "unsporting conduct" or if FFG intended the ID to be used in the exact case it was.

The precedent in that case is far more important and valid than an email ruling.

Anybody care to lay out the "Hoth precedent" for us? I have heard murmurings, but I'm not sure what the actual situation was nor how it may or may not have impacted other players.

Even just a link would do.

People used IDs to secure a spot in the top cut of the Hoth Open, when a loss might have eliminated them.

FFG was present and at least participating in, if not outright running, the event. So people say FFG has set the precedent that IDs used in this manner are legal.

And FFG has never made a mistake nor misruling in the past........

Anybody care to lay out the "Hoth precedent" for us? I have heard murmurings, but I'm not sure what the actual situation was nor how it may or may not have impacted other players.

Even just a link would do.

https://www.reddit.com/r/XWingTMG/comments/4dltxh/the_effect_of_the_intentional_draw_at_hoth/

Again, a key here is that FFG OP oversaw this tournament, and if they didn't intend the draw to be used this way, I don't think it would have been.

Anybody care to lay out the "Hoth precedent" for us?

At the Hoth tournament which was run by the FFG's OP people. They allowed two players to take a ID because doing so would preserve their standing in the top 8. If they played the game one of them would of gotten zero points which in theory could have allowed the #9 person to bump one of them out.

The Head Judge who again is part of FFG's OP group, as in the people who wrote the rules, said that was acceptable.

That's why it's a big deal in this case. If some random TO did it, we could say they weren't following the rules as intended, because there's a higher authority to appeal to. But due to Hoth, there isn't, the highest authority on how the rules should work are the ones who made the call.

That means all other TO's can and IMO should use that as guidance on what they do when someone wants to take an ID in other events.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a total fanboy. But come on, really? This was/is the intent of the rule? To screw some players out of a chance at the top cut so that someone (or a number of someones) who happens to be in the right place at the right time can engage in a round of No-Play Wing. Seriously?

And FFG has never made a mistake nor misruling in the past...

That may be true, but just because a ruling is later reversed doesn't change that it is the law of the land until that time.

So much uproar over such a little thing.

Is it too much that when one has the opportunity to take a long break before getting into elimination rounds that they can take it? Although they may all say otherwise I wonder how many of those 8 players were glad they could have a pause before moving on to the elimination rounds. Would any express some relief taking the ID? If the backlash that is already calling for their heads isn't obvious (and it is out there) it could happen but the way things are it looks like a sure way to make more people unhappy. Sure, there if all, or maybe just some, of those games had been played some of those top 8 seats may have been filled by someone else but you know, the best player don't always win!

I see some saying they'll stop playing if the ID allowance isn't revoked immediately. I say GOOD RIDDANCE if that is your stance. When I look at the ID I see something that does good for more people than it harms. At Roanoke it benefited 8 players with a break before that top 8 while I'll concede it MAY have left a couple people from making it. Don't try telling me that it affects all the 3-2 players because we should all know that only a few could have had any chance at making the top 8 even with a perfect game.

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.

The issue with the Hoth Draw is that it was overseen by FFG OP, the people that implemented the rule. So, that should clear up any ambiguity of whether this is a case of "unsporting conduct" or if FFG intended the ID to be used in the exact case it was.

The precedent in that case is far more important and valid than an email ruling.

I'll repeat what I said elsewhere, hell maybe here, on how precedents don't mean jack.

A few years ago at Nationals, the rule was that a bye awarded a win and 150 MOV. FFG on the spot decided that a bye should be 200 MOV and announced it as such. The rule afterward and since has been that it is 150 MOV.

At every point I am aware of, the rule has been 150 MOV (as long as MOV has existed at least). Yet FFG set the precedent that it was 200 MOV.

So, as I said, precedents don't mean anything until written in the rules. FFG is a body with many mouths, any of which can spout of the wrong thing or make the wrong decision.

I do not like IDs as a rule, and I look forward to them being removed as an option from X-Wing tournaments. That said, I think the people who are vilifying the players in Roanoke for taking draws are way, way off base. Their TO was the authority in the matter, and their TO allowed them to take draws, because by many interpretations of the current rules from FFG, this is permissible. Some people disagree with the ruling of the TO, but the TO was the authority, and their interpretations on collusion and unsportsmanlike conduct are wholly irrelevant in this situation.

I have no appreciation for the parties who are trying to "protect the integrity of the game" by attacking their fellow game community members. I feel bad for spots 9-12 in this tournament who could have made it to the top 8 but didn't because of the IDs. I feel much worse for the players who decided to take the ID, which the rules allowed for and their TO approved, and have subsequently received 48 hours of slander and mud slinging for it. I do not believe that it is deserved.

There's too much mud slinging that's resulting from people holding others to their personal standards. It's bizarre to me that these high personal standards which are being imposed on others do not include being civil, or giving the benefit of the doubt, to fellow community members whose decisions you disagree with.

Anybody care to lay out the "Hoth precedent" for us? I have heard murmurings, but I'm not sure what the actual situation was nor how it may or may not have impacted other players.

Even just a link would do.

People used IDs to secure a spot in the top cut of the Hoth Open, when a loss might have eliminated them.

FFG was present and at least participating in, if not outright running, the event. So people say FFG has set the precedent that IDs used in this manner are legal.

The marshall was an FFG employee. The TO was a different FFG employee. The score keeper was a third FFG employee. The judges were not employees of FFG, but for any big rulings referred back to the marshall.

At the Hoth tournament which was run by the FFG's OP people. They allowed two players to take a ID because doing so would preserve their standing in the top 8. If they played the game one of them would of gotten zero points which in theory could have allowed the #9 person to bump one of them out.

The Head Judge who again is part of FFG's OP group, as in the people who wrote the rules, said that was acceptable.

That's why it's a big deal in this case. If some random TO did it, we could say they weren't following the rules as intended, because there's a higher authority to appeal to. But due to Hoth, there isn't, the highest authority on how the rules should work are the ones who made the call.

That means all other TO's can and IMO should use that as guidance on what they do when someone wants to take an ID in other events.

https://www.reddit.com/r/XWingTMG/comments/4dltxh/the_effect_of_the_intentional_draw_at_hoth/

Again, a key here is that FFG OP oversaw this tournament, and if they didn't intend the draw to be used this way, I don't think it would have been.

And FFG has never made a mistake nor misruling in the past........

So, as I said, precedents don't mean anything until written in the rules.

They have exactly as much weight as the TO gives them. If the TO abides by precedents and email rulings then they matter a great deal. If they don't then they don't.

But it seems in this case the TO does, so they made the call they believed was correct. This is once again, RAW the TO's prevue and right to do. So your opinion about precedents if you're not the TO means less than you think the precedent does.

Edit: I'm sorry but you're really starting to border on being a hypocrite. You can't quote the rules about collusion and ignore the rules that state what authority the TO has.

And FFG has never made a mistake nor misruling in the past........

For those of you that think it was a mistake, why don't you email them? It's literally the same people/division that made the ruling and enforced it.

Do you really think they'd be in the dark about this situation (or the possibility of it) coming up in their biggest tourney(s) of the year so far? This type of ID has been discussed since the rule came out and to pretend they were ignorant of this possibility is somewhat obtuse.

I mean, I get that a lot of us don't like the rule and are trying to bend the interpretation of it to fit what we would like, but I think it's pretty clear what FFG both understood and intended the ID to do in these cases.

What they probably didn't expect was a perfect storm of situation that led to it being possible for a full top cut this weekend followed by public outcry, a shaming of people that invoked it, and a feud between their two world champions.

They most likely didn't see a situation like this being likely. I mean, 4 intentional draws is a much more serious situation than one per tournament.