I fail to see the difference between this and when flying someone off the board when they reveal an illegal red maneuver.

Do they top 3-8 players choose to do the crappy thing, that is not fun for anyone, to win. Or do they do the sub-optimal thing, play the game, but potentially lose out on the cut. Sure, it isn't Sophie's choice, but within the small context of this fun game, it is a difficult choice. In a highly competitive setting, I don't blame them going for the win. Crappy thing to do, sure. But not cheating, because there was no way for them to manipulate the results to get to that point.

Crappy thing to do, sure. But not cheating, because there was no way for them to manipulate the results to get to that point.

You understand that the above is just another way of saying, "Unethical, but legal," right?

Eh, my personal feelings toward it don't exactly go toward unethical.

I have a problem with trying to evaluate the ethics of a decision made within the rules of a recreational activity which resulted in no real harm to anyone. A couple of people missed out on some cheap accessories for a game that plays just as well out of the box as with the prizes. As I've said in other threads, I find the Roanoke incident personally distasteful, but given the lack of any real harm done to anyone involved, I don't see how it is any better, ethically speaking, to insult the Top 8 than it was for them to use the tournament rules to their own advantage. In a tournament, it is inevitable that someone wins and someone loses. They used the tools at their disposal to improve the chances at being the winner.

Again, let me stress this part: NOBODY was harmed by this in a meaningful way. There may be (as these forums clearly suggest) some hard feelings, but nobody truly lost anything of value (unless they placed foolishly large bets on the tourney, but that's their own fault...)

I have a problem with trying to evaluate the ethics of a decision made within the rules of a recreational activity which resulted in no real harm to anyone.

... Should evaluation and discussion of ethics (and ancillary issues, like the overlap with legality, or the very definition) really wait until serious harm is done? Really?

How serious? How much harm?

Is it "too soon" after the incident? Maybe it's just being "politicized"?

I have a problem with trying to evaluate the ethics of a decision made within the rules of a recreational activity which resulted in no real harm to anyone.

... Should evaluation and discussion of ethics (and ancillary issues, like the overlap with legality, or the very definition) really wait until serious harm is done? Really?

How serious? How much harm?

Is it "too soon" after the incident? Maybe it's just being "politicized"?

You're missing the point. This is a hobby game with nothing more on the line than unnecessary bling and trophies. Serious harm will not come from playing a game in which the stakes amount to no more than decoration.

You're missing the point. This is a hobby game with nothing more on the line than unnecessary bling and trophies. Serious harm will not come from playing a game in which the stakes amount to no more than decoration.

I'm really not missing your point. I promise.

My point is, "Given that this is a pretty minor incident, that isn't even a blip on the non-nerd radar, isn't this actually a really good subject for consideration of ethics?"

Why do you feel that a discussion of ethical behavior has to wait until somebody is seriously harmed? Aren't there even larger concerns than ethics at that point?

Actually by ebay prices the people locked out of the top 8 missed out on about 200 worth of prizes. So some monetary harm if nothing else.

My take on it is this: it is not an ethical question where no harm is done. Given the whole question here is centered on behavior in a gaming tournament, it is not an ethical issue in my opinion.

To address your broader point, in such a case as there is real harm or the potential thereof, legality does not dictate ethics. An act can be both legal and unethical. Likewise, a criminal act can be an ethical one. Ethics and laws are not the same thing.

In the case which is burning all over these forums, I don't see even the potential for an ethical problem. I only see matters of personal taste and preference. People throughout this community have different values. Some value victory higher than the game itself, it appears, and behave in a manner which is distastefully inconsiderate of others. I do not agree with or condone their actions. I would have much more respect for them if they'd earned their place through playing X-wing rather than playing the tournament rules.

The tournament rules were available to all before play began, and everyone participating in regionals is expected to know the most current tournament rules. By choosing to participate, they gave consent to the intentional draw rules. There is nothing which compelled them to participate.

All in all, the Roanoke Incident was unfortunate, but unless FFG starts to implement higher entry fees and offering cash or otherwise externally valuable prizes, I don't think conduct like this falls in the realm of ethics. It falls in with personal preference and priority, and the terms I would use to describe the Roanoke 8 would be "cutthroat" or "ruthless", rather than unethical.

As a side note, in tribute to the obvious humor floating around the boards, I propose that we start calling them the Croatoans.

By the way, I hope my replies are coming across as courteous, as I truly mean no disrespect. Sadly, I find courtesy often doesn't quite translate to social media. Really, I think you and I simply have divergent ideas of what the term "ethics" really means, and subjective as ethics are, I don't think either one of us is wrong.

Actually by ebay prices the people locked out of the top 8 missed out on about 200 worth of prizes. So some monetary harm if nothing else.

Wow. People will pay that for decorative coins and alternate playing pieces without any functional difference? I guess I haven't looked up enough X-wing on eBay...

To get to the meat of your complaint:

"I don't like this, it should be wrong!" Fine. You don't like how a rule impacts game play. I acknowledge your opinion. I'd have appreciated some reasons supporting it, but I guess the attack on the beliefs of others and soapbox sermon justifying your divine rightness and apparent infallibility will have to do?

To your presentation of said opinion:

Wow Jeff... Just...wow. The number of false assumptions and straw man prop arguments is just stunning. To be fair, you've done a fairly impressive job of dressing up your "I don't like this so it should be wrong" stance -- but that's also all you've said (albeit rather pretentiously).

For starters, I think you'd do well to remember that when trying to argue "morals, ethics, and just laws" what you're really arguing are the product of opinions. We see this all throughout history and societies worldwide. What one culture thinks is self-evidently Divine another sees as repugnant. This goes for singular members of a given culture as well, which should be evident any time you interact with others. And your blatant disrespect of anyone whose opinion isn't what you appear to believe it should be (i.e. yours) has been disheartening.

Secondly, I take issue with your idea that you have the right to "pass judgement" on the beliefs of others (implicit in the fact that others may embrace the very ethics and morals you are judging). Certainly you have the right to consider, disagree, and not follow morals or ethics you find "wrong." But "pass judgement?" Disagreeing means you feel they're not right for you. "Passing judgment" usually ends up meaning someone feels they're not right for anyone, and they have to go. You know..."wrong-think." The first is a recipe for co-existence. The second is generally a recipe for "Yeah...they need to go away." With respect, you don't have the "right" to tell others what they find moral or ethical. On that note, do you really feel, as you state, that if someone refuses to justify their moral grounds to you they forfeit their right to even be heard? To be dismissed from consideration entirely?

I can't help but wonder if you've ever uttered the phrase "Why can't we all just get along?" Because if you have, all you need to do is look at your own statements in this thread and I would hope you'd be able to see why people don't (though having read your statements, I'm willing to bet you don't see anything wrong with how you've interacted).

Your apparent outlook that people just accept rules without arguing them is lunacy; both in games and in real life. Laws are contested, repealed, re-written, and challenged repeated; just look at prohibition or the endless abortion debate if you doubt it. Games are no different, with errata changes and even completely new editions being made regularly. And rules, just like laws, are not changed because of exploitation (tax loopholes anyone?). They are changed when the parties in power decide to change them. Sometimes this is due to a majority of opinion in the groups they represent. Sometimes it is due to their own beliefs and desires. And sometimes it's to bend to the unreasonable viewpoint of a rather small minority that refuses to stop throwing tantrums until they get their way, just to get them to shut the hell up.

By the way, I hope my replies are coming across as courteous, as I truly mean no disrespect.

They are. And even if you were not clearly being deliberately courteous, it would have to go much further than that to offend me, as I am not a p***y.

Three things:

One, I like "Croatoans."

Two, "Roanoke Incident" would be such an unbelievably good rock band name.

Three, if you're interested, when I have a chance, I could respond with what I think might be relevant thoughts on the "scalability" of ethical considerations. Scalability that, unlike moral or legal considerations, makes ethical discussions on on otherwise low-impact events actually worth having.

I think this better serves as a parallel than slavery or the Holocaust.... imagine you roll a hit and three blanks. You spend a target lock. Do you re-roll 4 dice in the hours of making your hit a crit? Most likely, no, since you realize a hit in the hand is worth more than a crit in the bush. You are risk-averse, and the rules support you in this. The players who took the ID were risk-averse and the rules supported them.

I personally find the rule and the situation distasteful, and I'm fairly sure if I was in the situation (which in my case would involve sacrificing a herd of cows to the Viridian OctahedroGod) I'd play and not accept the draw. But I won't fault someone while playing a game (A GAME!!!) with somewhat arbitrary rules when they exploit the rules to mitigate risk in their standings. Finding and exploiting slight gaps in armor is how the players got good in the first place (and, incidentally, how both death stars got destroyed).

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.

A deliberate lack of consideration and empathy is not a marker of intellectual rigor or superiority. How exactly would you respond to someone who deliberately broached a subject that carries a great deal of emotional baggage with you to construct a logical structure comparison about X-Wing? Let me just assure you that most people will not respond well to that sort of thing. But hey, you can test that proposition: bring up stuff you know distresses your friends and/or family and/or coworkers next time you're chatting. Do it to make points about trivial matters like miniatures games. Note how they respond.

You might not believe that's relevant here, but it is. Consider the prevalence of some of your points of comparison and consider how many people you expect to read the thread. Consider that it's statistically very likely that a person or persons with experience of such things read your thread.

And then, to tie it all together, consider your own words about the implications of ethical behavior even in otherwise low-impact events.

I think this better serves as a parallel than slavery or the Holocaust.... imagine you roll a hit and three blanks. You spend a target lock. Do you re-roll 4 dice in the hours of making your hit a crit? Most likely, no, since you realize a hit in the hand is worth more than a crit in the bush. You are risk-averse, and the rules support you in this. The players who took the ID were risk-averse and the rules supported them.

I personally find the rule and the situation distasteful, and I'm fairly sure if I was in the situation (which in my case would involve sacrificing a herd of cows to the Viridian OctahedroGod) I'd play and not accept the draw. But I won't fault someone while playing a game (A GAME!!!) with somewhat arbitrary rules when they exploit the rules to mitigate risk in their standings. Finding and exploiting slight gaps in armor is how the players got good in the first place (and, incidentally, how both death stars got destroyed).

Not a bad example. Myself, I thought of this as comparable to taking a knee in football, except suddenly both teams can do it on every play.

While not questioning the rulings, I do have to question the appearance of collusion between players this can create. For me it calls into question their entire match history. Are they "throwing" key games to help assure the "right" players are getting where they need to get, and then employing the ID strategy? It's one thing if they had an ID "build" designed to force stalemates that they played every match (is this even possible?). It's another when they play competitively until they face their final opponents...who also then suddenly switch to the ID rule.

I'm pretty sure collusion between players doesn't fall under the guise of fair play. I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I'm just saying, rather than going after the ID ruling, perhaps it makes more sense to point out the specter of impropriety this brings to the tourney circuit?