... give immunity from judgment on behavior?

It's also perfectly legal to post yet another thread about it, so hey

Havnt seen anyone try to draw parralels to slavery before, though it has been godwinned already

Nah, in the case of Roanoke people say 'it's not illegal' because so many muppets are calling them cheaters.

EDIT: Ninja'd by Fickle, but I'm also out of likes *shrug*

"Don't blame me, FFG says I can do it" is somewhat akin to a Nuremberg Defence, as I see it

Beating your wife and children was immoral before the laws for domestic abuse were enshrined, for example.

Two actual posts on here articulating the same train of thought. You've gone for Slavery as your outrageously offensive analogue, so +1 for uniqueness.

never mind. Not worth it.

Havnt seen anyone try to draw parralels to slavery before, though it has been godwinned already

The way he used the parallel is incorrect. Slavers weren't punished while doing it because it was legal, and they weren't punished ex post facto style either.

The way he used the parallel is incorrect. Slavers weren't punished while doing it because it was legal, and they weren't punished ex post facto style either.

Given that I was talking about being ethically and morally judged, and specifically not legally judged, would you like to try again?

It's also perfectly legal to post yet another thread about it, so hey

... Another thread about what?

Really? More of this crap?

"First World Problems" doesn't even begin to describe how much of a joke this whole "controversy" is

I wonder how victims of Slavery, The Holocaust and domestic violence feel about having their abuse compared to some X-Wing players using a rule you find objectionable.

I'm with you Jeff. Because it's "legal" doesn't make it right to blatantly exploit it.

And I question those who speak out against ID and then use it. Or use it and tell people to write FFG about how you didn't like what they did.

If a company hates loop holes, exploits a loop hole, shows the public the money they made from the loop hole and says this is wrong, then keeps the money. Is a screwed up but legal situation.

I wonder how victims of Slavery, The Holocaust and Domestic violence feel about having their abuse compared to some X-Wing players using a rule you find objectionable.

Some of them can probably recognize the difference between logical structure comparisons and magnitude of offense comparisons. That puts them intellectually ahead of most of the replies thus far ... and quite a few of them are actually dead.

The way he used the parallel is incorrect. Slavers weren't punished while doing it because it was legal, and they weren't punished ex post facto style either.

Given that I was talking about being ethically and morally judged, and specifically not legally judged, would you like to try again?

Still holds up. Every individual has a different ethical and moral perspective. The entire South thought slavery was ethically and morally correct. Lincoln even tried to buy all their slaves so no feelings would be hurt before flat out abolishing them. it's a bad comparison to this situation and inappropriate.

it's a bad comparison to this situation and inappropriate.

"It was legal. It was judged by many to be ethically corrupt."

Since it's such a bad comparison, what exactly am I talking about in the line in the quotation marks? Surely you can tell, simply by the way the comparison is so weak.

You wanna go for three strikes, or quit while you're a behind?

I wonder how victims of Slavery, The Holocaust and Domestic violence feel about having their abuse compared to some X-Wing players using a rule you find objectionable.

Some of them can probably recognize the difference between logical structure comparisons and magnitude of offense comparisons. That puts them intellectually ahead of most of the replies thus far ... and quite a few of them are actually dead.

Tragically though, as much as it may hurt your argument, there *is* a difference between the mass enslavement of an entire ethnic group and a miniatures game rule.

But if you want a proper response, slavery 'wasn't illegal'. ID is expressly legal.

That puts them intellectually ahead of most of the replies thus far ... and quite a few of them are actually dead.

But if you want a proper response, slavery 'wasn't illegal'. ID is expressly legal.

... Just need to quote this for posterity. Carry on.

Um, it's because in your comparison you are sighting legal laws of the time and things that society as a whole.

This is a game. Games are something people play, for fun.

They play it in a set of rules.

A player of Xwing can make a stress control ship that will deny your ships ability to do what they're best at. It will clog up your entire strategy. It isn't nice, but it's in the rules and smart to do.

A good Magic player in competition makes a deck that will control another player's deck and make him not be able to play his. This isn't "nice" playing, but it's within the rules and how you should play to win.

But if you want a proper response, slavery 'wasn't illegal'. ID is expressly legal.

... Just need to quote this for posterity. Carry on.

Oh dear, you really are bad at this aren't you? Don't worry, I'm sure you can compare this quote to something totally unrelated, because that's what human beings with empathy do!

... give immunity from judgment on behavior?

I don't know where this idea came from that "since it's legal, it's wrong to pass judgment on it."

I haven't seen a lot of people making that claim. (I'd say "none", but given the level of vitriol and the sheer volume of attention, I wouldn't stake money on that.) What I have seen a lot of is people making a similar claim with a key distinction: just because a rule is poorly conceived, counterproductive, and even unfair doesn't necessarily mean following it is unethical.

My view is that the Top 8 at Roanoake were in a kind of crappy situation, from an ethical standpoint: they were each faced with the question of whether to follow the rules and obtain a competitive advantage while imposing a disadvantage on players (barely) outside the Top 8, or refuse the opportunity and impose a disadvantage on their opponents. Whose discomfort should they have privileged? I don't see a reason to accept without argument that they were wrong, individually and collectively to take IDs due to its effect on players who were on the bubble, because that version of events neglects the impact of refusing to ID on one's opponent.

Put another way, it's easy to say that ID is a bad rule and therefore no one should follow it. But I'm not sure one is the logical result of the other: in a world where the ID rule exists, someone is going to get hit with the Unfair Stick. (It's a big part of the reason ID is a bad rule.) Is it worse to take an ID and prevent someone from rising into the top 8, or to refuse to take an ID and then knock your opponent out? I don't think the answer to that question is clear-cut.

And block list for this guy. Wow, I'm insulted on so many levels. Time for this thread to be locked.

Sure the answer is clear. "Play the game"

And block list for this guy. Wow, I'm insulted on so many levels. Time for this thread to be locked.

Ah, but blocking someone on social media is the same as government censorship! Those are two things that are definitely good analogues.

EDIT: **** autocorrect (and typing while angry)

And block list for this guy. Wow, I'm insulted on so many levels. Time for this thread to be locked.

Ah, but blocking someone on social media is the same as government censorship! Those are two things that are defiantly good analogues.

Sorry but this one drives me nuts: DEFINITELY.

Nah, in the case of Roanoke people say 'it's not illegal' because so many muppets are calling them cheaters.

EDIT: Ninja'd by Fickle, but I'm also out of likes *shrug*

"Don't blame me, FFG says I can do it" is somewhat akin to a Nuremberg Defence, as I see it

Beating your wife and children was immoral before the laws for domestic abuse were enshrined, for example.

Two actual posts on here articulating the same train of thought. You've gone for Slavery as your outrageously offensive analogue, so +1 for uniqueness.

This is a ******* miniatures game.

There is legal and illegal. There is no right or wrong.

I haven't seen a lot of people making that claim. (I'd say "none", but given the level of vitriol and the sheer volume of attention, I wouldn't stake money on that.)

And you should not. "It's a bad rule, but you can't judge people who did it, because it's legal" may not be a direct quote, but it is **** close. Pick any page of the thread, go look, and come back.

just because a rule is poorly conceived, counterproductive, and even unfair doesn't necessarily mean following it is unethical.

First ... really? If a rule is "counterproductive, and even unfair," it's not unethical to follow it?

Second, even if it's not necessarily unethical, you are not questioning the validity of opining on whether it is ethical, are you? Because that's what "it's legal, so it's okay" does: it means that opining on the ethical implications is not valid.

they were each faced with the question of whether to follow the rules and obtain a competitive advantage while imposing a disadvantage on players (barely) outside the Top 8, or refuse the opportunity and impose a disadvantage on their opponents.

Yes, absolutely.

Have you really never realized until now that behaving ethically often means disadvantaging oneself, in the short term? In fact, I bet with three minutes of searching, you could find a number of quotes about how to judge an ethical person, most of them having to do with whether or not adhering to ethical behavior is inconvenient to the actor.

in a world where the ID rule exists, someone is going to get hit with the Unfair Stick. (It's a big part of the reason ID is a bad rule.)

Yes, absolutely.

And, as the person (quite unfairly) confronted with the unpleasantness of that reality, you have a choice: "Do I decide that, having been unfairly placed in this situation, I have been treated unfairly, but I will nevertheless behave ethically ... or do I decide that I am going to pass the unfairness along to someone who was not unfairly selected and who does not even have a choice in the matter?"

It is absolutely unfair and unpleasant to have to make a choice to one's detriment. It only adds to the unfairness and unpleasantness when the decision one makes is to dump it upon someone who is not only just as initially innocent as you are ... but who does not even have the satisfaction of being able to make an ethical choice.