the swiss rounds had finished and most people were leaving when I heard some players who had made the cut discussing how they could drop out to arrange certain match ups in an easier way for one of the players, since they had byes already while he didn't. I thought it was not a sportmanship thing. People are free to drop but shouldn't they do so before the other players have left, so that others have a chance to make the cut?

I was about to say something but some of these are nice and welcoming players at my local store and I didn't want to start an argument. but it bugged me that I didn't say anything.

If it happens again, do you think I should say something or do you think it's an acceptable thing?

Were they joking about it or actually planning it? I've made and heard comments like that at a lot of tournaments, but nobody was seriously considering doing it.

I agree with Taste on this one. Tone is a VERY big decider on this.

Did they do it?

If so I would be pissed.

no it was 100% serious and I'm pretty sure they did it. I read their fb comments afterwards, from the guy thanking the others. the guy who was going to benefit was actually reluctant at first, but the other was saying something like "hey no big deal, we are ready to do it". the way they were talking about it openly, it was clear they didn't think it was a big deal.

So these players had all "made the cut" along with someone else who didn't already have a bye? How big is the cut? While I would certainly hope they would play at least the first round there is nothing stopping them from conceding a game which is essentially the same as dropping once you've made the elimination rounds.

When it comes to speaking out let me ask you this: How would you feel about "speaking up/out" if you saw a match where someone wasn't taking Stress after being the first each round to shoot at a ship with a Rebel Captive aboard?

So these players had all "made the cut" along with someone else who didn't already have a bye? How big is the cut? While I would certainly hope they would play at least the first round there is nothing stopping them from conceding a game which is essentially the same as dropping once you've made the elimination rounds.

When it comes to speaking out let me ask you this: How would you feel about "speaking up/out" if you saw a match where someone wasn't taking Stress after being the first each round to shoot at a ship with a Rebel Captive aboard?

that's different because remembering to use your upgrades is part of the skill needed to play better. however, waiting for people to leave before you drop out, so that the original cut of 8 players now becomes 3-4 is not fair to those who were placed 9-11 because maybe they want to play in the cut.

the swiss rounds had finished and most people were leaving when I heard some players who had made the cut discussing how they could drop out to arrange certain match ups in an easier way for one of the players, since they had byes already while he didn't. I thought it was not a sportmanship thing. People are free to drop but shouldn't they do so before the other players have left, so that others have a chance to make the cut?

I was about to say something but some of these are nice and welcoming players at my local store and I didn't want to start an argument. but it bugged me that I didn't say anything.

If it happens again, do you think I should say something or do you think it's an acceptable thing?

This is collusion in my opinion. They were manipulating the tournament.

Agreed, but it's also on the 9-11 guys to wait around and see. If they were cool, then you should be, too (though it would bother me like it did you).

Shoulda quoted first. I'm responding to XBear's post.

Can a winning player decline the bye and pass it to 2nd place? And 2nd place likewise etc?

I have been in multiple tourneys where players decline range ruler, tokens, or coins so that the next player in line can get a prize but I'm guessing that doesn't work with the bye.

Can a winning player decline the bye and pass it to 2nd place? And 2nd place likewise etc?

I have been in multiple tourneys where players decline range ruler, tokens, or coins so that the next player in line can get a prize but I'm guessing that doesn't work with the bye.

I believe that is how it is supposed to work.

Something similar to this happened at a SC I competed at. I had gone 5-0 in Swiss and was top seed, but I already had a bye. Seed 3 had no bye. Seed 2 had a bye, and he and I had played in Round 3. Seed 4 had a bye, and he and I had played in Round 1. Seed 4 in this case wanted to go home (and didn't want to replicate the first match), so dropped and offered his spot to 5th place, who did not have a bye. 5th and I had played in Round 4, and were now poised to play each other in Round 1 of the cut. On the next table, Seeds 2 and 3 were eyeing each other as they had just played each other in the fourth round to Seed 2's massive victory, and weren't excited to play out a rematch that could very well go the exact same way.

Since it was getting late, and all of our games were rematches (of blowouts - Seed 2 and I had both won those games 100-0 very quickly), I discussed with my opponent and the rest of the top cut players a proposal: If myself and seed 2 conceded our two matches, Seed 3 and 4 would advance to the final round. Since it was looking likely that myself and Seed 2 would end up winning and playing a final (rematch) round for no stakes, and the bye would pass to 3 or 4 anyway, we elected (after getting the OK from our opponents) to concede our games and let Seeds 3 and 4 play each other for a bye. It ended up being a tense, close, exciting game between players who hadn't yet played each other in the tournament and didn't have byes, so it was played for stakes.

Sometimes I still wonder if I did the right thing - should I, instead of conceding, at least dropped to forfeit prize support and allow 6th place to come in to the cut and play? Should I have just played it out? If so, why would I be doing that? To show off how I could beat my opponent again? For another championship plaque? The bye would get passed down if I won, so would I just end up denying a great player his chance to compete for a bye? By the time we made our decision, most others had already left, including 6th, 7th, and 8th place. I drove the two hours home listening to another podcast, had time for a nice dinner and rest, and heard the stories of the exciting final game the next day.

What really irks me after the fact is I don't know if someone sees it like this: that I was colluding with someone else to arrange matchups, which technically I was doing. Certainly, in the moment the decision was made with the best of intentions (To arrange an exciting cut rather than one that was almost predetermined), but maybe 6th place felt miffed that I didn't drop and get him in contention. (Honestly, the thought didn't even occur to me until I was driving home) Maybe someone else saw it as manipulating the match to a "friend's" benefit.

Something similar to this happened at a SC I competed at. I had gone 5-0 in Swiss and was top seed, but I already had a bye. Seed 3 had no bye. Seed 2 had a bye, and he and I had played in Round 3. Seed 4 had a bye, and he and I had played in Round 1. Seed 4 in this case wanted to go home (and didn't want to replicate the first match), so dropped and offered his spot to 5th place, who did not have a bye. 5th and I had played in Round 4, and were now poised to play each other in Round 1 of the cut. On the next table, Seeds 2 and 3 were eyeing each other as they had just played each other in the fourth round to Seed 2's massive victory, and weren't excited to play out a rematch that could very well go the exact same way.

Since it was getting late, and all of our games were rematches (of blowouts - Seed 2 and I had both won those games 100-0 very quickly), I discussed with my opponent and the rest of the top cut players a proposal: If myself and seed 2 conceded our two matches, Seed 3 and 4 would advance to the final round. Since it was looking likely that myself and Seed 2 would end up winning and playing a final (rematch) round for no stakes, and the bye would pass to 3 or 4 anyway, we elected (after getting the OK from our opponents) to concede our games and let Seeds 3 and 4 play each other for a bye. It ended up being a tense, close, exciting game between players who hadn't yet played each other in the tournament and didn't have byes, so it was played for stakes.

Sometimes I still wonder if I did the right thing - should I, instead of conceding, at least dropped to forfeit prize support and allow 6th place to come in to the cut and play? Should I have just played it out? If so, why would I be doing that? To show off how I could beat my opponent again? For another championship plaque? The bye would get passed down if I won, so would I just end up denying a great player his chance to compete for a bye? By the time we made our decision, most others had already left, including 6th, 7th, and 8th place. I drove the two hours home listening to another podcast, had time for a nice dinner and rest, and heard the stories of the exciting final game the next day.

What really irks me after the fact is I don't know if someone sees it like this: that I was colluding with someone else to arrange matchups, which technically I was doing. Certainly, in the moment the decision was made with the best of intentions (To arrange an exciting cut rather than one that was almost predetermined), but maybe 6th place felt miffed that I didn't drop and get him in contention. (Honestly, the thought didn't even occur to me until I was driving home) Maybe someone else saw it as manipulating the match to a "friend's" benefit.

if you put yourself in #6 shoes, you might see that, if seed 3-4 (or 5?I was a bit confused) had a shot at winning the SC, maybe #6 had a shot to. unless he was clearly outmatched by the players above him. so on one hand what you did was not good. on the other hand, you can also look at it another way, that he was out of the cut and so didn't "deserve" winning the SC. but seeds 3-4 really didn't "deserve" winning either since you and the other player who conceded were stronger.

I don't know. in the end it's just a game and no big deal. I do think this is much better than IDs since IDs can keep someone out of a cut even if they do deserve it, while the above does not prevent anyone from making the cut if they truly deserved it.

I dislike players manipulating or ignoring tournament rules. All of my tournament experiences are in sports, not X-Wing and it is not uncommon to play the same team in the bracket that you played in pool play. I have never heard of teams colluding to rearrange the bracket. It is what it is and you play it out. Those are the rules and you follow the rules.

The OP post reeks of collusion and poor sportsmanship. If you don't want to play in the bracket, then drop out and let the players who earned the next spots in the bracket to play. What they did is cheating.

...

When it comes to speaking out let me ask you this: How would you feel about "speaking up/out" if you saw a match where someone wasn't taking Stress after being the first each round to shoot at a ship with a Rebel Captive aboard?

that's different because remembering to use your upgrades is part of the skill needed to play better. however, waiting for people to leave before you drop out, so that the original cut of 8 players now becomes 3-4 is not fair to those who were placed 9-11 because maybe they want to play in the cut.

Here I'll disagree with you. There is nothing optional with Rebel Captive so failing to execute it is a rule violation just as much as the discussion this thread is about.

Now with a tiny 4 person cut and two of them willing to "throw" matches to give a third person the best chance to win I'd agree that waiting for people to leave who would fill any drops is poor sportsmanship. Of course there is nothing stopping those people from playing in very recklessly in the cut and self destructing which will amount to the same thing.

There are no two ways about it. What the OP and acegard described is the exact definition of collusion.

So who was hurt by this? Did somebody who was not in the "colluding" group miss out on a chance to win because of what happened? Genuinely curious.

First, players are allowed to concede a match.

I heard of players, in SC, already had won their bye move on to the cut (maybe to get the coin or other prize) and then concede to give their opponent a chance to go further. In the cases where an individual decides on his or her own goals and reasons, I don't think they beholden to anyone that didn't make the cut to give up their spot before.

However, it does seem like collusion in for multiple players to rig several outcomes for a desired result.