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.

I don't think I've said anything about the TO in this particular case. My point is only that a precedent is not a rule. The argument that the rule is clear because of the precedent is totally invalid. My intent was to make clear that this is still clearly in the TOs ballcourt to rule upon - which you seem to agree with based upon this statement.

If one TO wants to take it under advisement, fine. If another says "precedents don't mean jack", he is also correct. I've heard a lot of hatred flung about toward TOs who will make a completely valid ruling of disallowing IDs, even calling for the TO to be banned. This is all because some say "we know the intent based on precedent". Bull. No, we don't. Because precedent means nothing unless the TO wants it to.

Just wanted to make clear what the precedent really means, because we don't need to lynch TOs if they choose not to follow it. They aren't required to until it is in the rules. And it isn't in the rules right now.

The shaming of the people that took the ID is what gets me. You guys need to calm down. The decision was theirs to make. Name calling and character bashing is beyond the pale, and makes all of us in the X-wing Community look bad.

The shaming of the people that took the ID is what gets me. You guys need to calm down. The decision was theirs to make. Name calling and character bashing is beyond the pale.

Directly from the robot of justice, people.

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.

I agree. But it's not like they haven't done full on turnabouts in the past.

And to give everything that FFG does an air of infallibility is utter rubbish. I haven't even been playing all that long and can come up with a half dozen reversals off the top of my head, so I'd hope some measure of skepticism would at least be considered.

If they didn't want IDs to secure a place, they wouldn't be worth 1 point.

And they are fallible. Their required Swiss rounds is off, which led to this mess.

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?

I'll refer my post (#749). If you think they didn't realize people would intend it that way, that would mean:

1. FFG didn't think of it when they created the rule.

2. They ignored a ton of conversation here and in various other forums/podcasts, etc..Or if they did realize it at that point, they simply ignored it and assumed that no one would use it, and no one thought, "****, the World Champion just said on Nova..we should make it clear what we mean." I mean, literally every gaming group that I'm aware of discussed this within hours of the new rules being released.

3. Even if 1 or 2 happened and the first time that it ever occurred to one of them was on the spot at Hoth when it still wasn't seen as against their rules and they never issued a correction, something they easily could have done with regionals just around the corner.

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.

I agree. But it's not like they haven't done full on turnabouts in the past.

And to give everything that FFG does an air of infallibility is utter rubbish. I haven't even been playing all that long and can come up with a half dozen reversals off the top of my head, so I'd hope some measure of skepticism would at least be considered.

I'm not saying they won't reverse it, don't make mistakes, etc.. and I hope they do reverse, but to imply they were completely ignorant of this possibility when they made the rule requires them to have missed quite a few things.

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.

I missed your edit while replying.

In the spirit of civil conversation, I'm willing to hear my hypocrisy because I'm at present unaware of the disconnect. Bomb away.

I THINK I'm being consistent. Collusion is not allowed under the rules, so I'm against it. The Hoth precedent is not, so the TO can make a ruling - as is within their authority. Point out the inconsistency and I'll be open to thinking on it. Perhaps I'm extending some personal bias into what "collusion" is, I don't know. Like I said, fire away.

If they didn't want IDs to secure a place, they wouldn't be worth 1 point.

And they are fallible. Their required Swiss rounds is off, which led to this mess.

Their required swiss rounds were correct but did not account for drops. 5 rounds with 45 people (the starting number) would have left one 7-1 out of the cut.

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.

I missed your edit while replying.

In the spirit of civil conversation, I'm willing to hear my hypocrisy because I'm at present unaware of the disconnect. Bomb away.

I THINK I'm being consistent. Collusion is not allowed under the rules, so I'm against it. The Hoth precedent is not, so the TO can make a ruling as is within their authority. Point out the inconsistency and I'll be open to thinking on it. Perhaps I'm extending some personal bias into what "collusion" is, I don't know. Like I said, fire away.

Intentional Draw is collusion. It is an allowed exception to the collusion rules.

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.

I think the issue is that a rule that is unfair to a few underdogs is even less desirable.

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.

I missed your edit while replying.

In the spirit of civil conversation, I'm willing to hear my hypocrisy because I'm at present unaware of the disconnect. Bomb away.

I THINK I'm being consistent. Collusion is not allowed under the rules, so I'm against it. The Hoth precedent is not, so the TO can make a ruling as is within their authority. Point out the inconsistency and I'll be open to thinking on it. Perhaps I'm extending some personal bias into what "collusion" is, I don't know. Like I said, fire away.

Intentional Draw is collusion. It is an allowed exception to the collusion rules.

I do not see written anywhere in the rules that ID is an allowed exception. That is an INFERENCE some make because the unsporting conduct section is referenced, and not a written rule.

I've reread those sections dozens of times, and the only thing I can come up with is that it reads as "ID allowed ONLY IF it doesn't violate the unsporting section".

It makes a clear statement that "the leader will not intervene as long as players follow the "Unsporting Conduct" on page 3". Not violating that section is an explicit condition of doing it...how can that be read as making it not subject to that section?

I'm not saying they won't reverse it, don't make mistakes, etc.. and I hope they do reverse, but to imply they were completely ignorant of this possibility when they made the rule requires them to have missed quite a few things.

I'm not saying they are ignorant of the rule, but they didn't seem to fully appreciate exactly how far it could cascade and the fallout that might occur. The 'full ramifications', if you will.

If they did fully consider the potential level of problems this may cause and decided to go thru with it anyway, then shame on them. Shame, shame, shame.

I cannot for the life of me see how FFG, or anyone for that matter, can see this as fair and appropriate. Not even close to 'sporting', especially in a game that hangs it's hat on sportsmanship and fair play.

My point is only that a precedent is not a rule. The argument that the rule is clear because of the precedent is totally invalid.

No it's not, you may consider it so, but if the TO in question considers the precedence to be binding then it is. This is very much a matter of perspective trumping all.

They aren't required to until it is in the rules.

Sure, but in that also means you can't point at the rules and say this is collusion when the TO had ruled otherwise.

By some peoples definition of collusion dropping from a tournament would fit.

If they didn't want IDs to secure a place, they wouldn't be worth 1 point.

And they are fallible. Their required Swiss rounds is off, which led to this mess.

Their required swiss rounds were correct but did not account for drops. 5 rounds with 45 people (the starting number) would have left one 7-1 out of the cut.

It was actually a paired-down losing that caused it. 5 rounds would have left 1 x-1 out of the cut, which is better than had they played the 6th round, no IDs, where 8 of 10 X-2s would have been left out of the cut, with only the top 2 on MOV of the 4-2s making it in.

Collusion is not allowed under the rules, so I'm against it.

Because Collusion is at the discretion of the TO, so the reason I said that is because you are claiming it's collusion when the TO clearly didn't think so, for whatever reason.

Now if you're talking about how you'd rule that's one thing. But you can't point at the rules and say that this was collusion, and ignore the part that says the TO has the final decision.

I don't think you were being a hypocrite, I was just pointing out that you were bordering on it, because you seemed to be claiming the RAW for one thing, but ignoring it on something else.

I'm not saying they won't reverse it, don't make mistakes, etc.. and I hope they do reverse, but to imply they were completely ignorant of this possibility when they made the rule requires them to have missed quite a few things.

I'm not saying they are ignorant of the rule, but they didn't seem to fully appreciate exactly how far it could cascade and the fallout that might occur. The 'full ramifications', if you will.

If they did fully consider the potential level of problems this may cause and decided to go thru with it anyway, then shame on them. Shame, shame, shame.

I cannot for the life of me see how FFG, or anyone for that matter, can see this as fair and appropriate. Not even close to 'sporting', especially in a game that hangs it's hat on sportsmanship and fair play.

I feel like someone thought there was a good reason to have it, and I also think they probably thought it would be exceedingly rare a situation where a perfect cut would occur and all 8 could ID.

However, there will always be 2-6 players, much more frequently that can but I don't they're that short-sighted that they couldn't see the possibility of them being used the way or as they were at Hoth.

I think they didn't consider the fallout, for sure, but yeah, at this point, they're a bit damned either way.

Agreed.

I think it would be ok (IDs I mean), with some clarification.

Edit: something like --

"If it is clear that a player will make the top cut, regardless of the outcome of their final round game, they are allowed to propose an Intentional Draw to their opponent. This proposal can only be initiated and discussed in the presence of the Tournament Organizer (or equivalent). No prior discussion nor collusion is allowed under any circumstances. This Intentional Draw must be approved by the opponent and the TO and will award no points to either player."

My point is only that a precedent is not a rule. The argument that the rule is clear because of the precedent is totally invalid.

No it's not, you may consider it so, but if the TO in question considers the precedence to be binding then it is. This is very much a matter of perspective trumping all.

They aren't required to until it is in the rules.

Sure, but in that also means you can't point at the rules and say this is collusion when the TO had ruled otherwise.

Did I say somewhere that you could? I don't think so? I feel like I've said the opposite. The rules are unclear, precedents aren't rules, and So TOs can go either way and not be wrong.

I think it would be ok (IDs I mean), with some clarification.

I would too. I think the idea itself isn't so bad, but the outcome is a bit iffy.

I think a system that keeps the top <half> of the cut locked in wouldn't be bad, but it's when someone at the bottom end of the cut can block someone that there's an issue.

So if it's a cut to the top 8, the top 4 even with a 0 are going to make the cut. But 7 or 8 may get knocked out and I think they shouldn't be able to lock in their place. But again that's what I think should happen, which isn't what it seems FFG thinks should happen.

Did I say somewhere that you could? I don't think so.

Then perhaps I read something that wasn't there, and if so I apologize for any offense.

@VanorDM:

I'd even be fine with the top 8 taking the ID - as long is it is predetermined that they would all make it regardless. As when maybe there are 4-0s and others are 2-2. The last game will not change the cut and as such IDs would be fine.

See my edit lol.

Did I say somewhere that you could? I don't think so.

Then perhaps I read something that wasn't there, and if so I apologize for any offense.

I'm not offended. I'm confident in what is in my mind (right now at least) and not in what I type, so I wouldn't put it past me to lead you down that road by being unclear. Hell, for all I know, I changed my mind at some point. Memory is totally fallible. When I ask the question and say I don't think so, I really mean it genuinely and not sarcastically

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?

Absolutely. Jeff's an *******.