Which part the TO getting angry with the player or the part where he demanded he be thrown out of the store?

You mean the parts that never actually happened?

Based on an independent party, the TO never got angry and never demanded anything. It was the OP who brought up the whole thing about getting kicked out of the store.

You really owe it to everyone to go and read what actually happened before you start to lay blame or accuse people of something they didn't actually do.

As a NorCal guy some of the Mynocks are really cool, some however are getting more and more full of themselves. Grade 1 ego trip by TO and Grade 1 overreaction by you. Everyone loses. Too bad.

Care to elaborate? Because it seems you threw nonsensical sentences about TO lightly. Meanwhile said TO did all the things right, forcing people to follow game rules (as it should be).

Which part the TO getting angry with the player or the part where he demanded he be thrown out of the store? Either one of those seem nonsensical or reasonable to you? The TO enforcing the rule was fine if not priggish by the TO at a local monthly tournament where both players were ambivalent. His overreaction was beyond the pail. Hope this satisfies your query.

So, in your opinion what is the correct TO reaction when a player more or less tells him to his face 'I will not obey the rules on this matter. What are you going to do about it?'

So are you still sticking to, "the TO did all the things right"? As stated in my other response he could have simply and quietly asked him to take the cards (as per the rules) or forfeit the match. The OP should have taken the cards. That, however, doesn't excuse the TO.

You're putting too much stock into the credibility of the angry party's presentation of the events as they occured

So you are saying that he didn't ask to have the player kicked from the store? Do you know this first hand? The TOs "anger" could certainly be relative and subject to interpretation but asking to have someone removed from the store is not subjective and it happened or it didn't. If you were there and know first hand please chime in. The OP clearly has his issues and was in the wrong. But if the TO was loud, angry and or asked to have the player removed from the store he is in line for accepting some responsibility and some self reflection. Agree or disagree?

See post #24 for details from someone who was there...

Post #24

Also Post #32

Which part the TO getting angry with the player or the part where he demanded he be thrown out of the store?

You mean the parts that never actually happened?Based on an independent party, the TO never got angry and never demanded anything. It was the OP who brought up the whole thing about getting kicked out of the store.You really owe it to everyone to go and read what actually happened before you start to lay blame or accuse people of something they didn't actually do.

After reading post #24 from a 1st hand account it doesn't change my position. Maybe he was angry maybe he wasn't. The account does reinforce that the TO wanted/insinuated that he be thrown out of the store. The poster did not address the manner in which this happened and calling the OP "loser" suggests he may have bias of his own. Again the OP was dead wrong and he should have taken the cards without complaint. No TO should eject or threaten that a player can or will be ejected from a store unless physical violence is acted on or threatened. Post #24 has absolutely no hint or allegation of that. The TO is to enforce the rules but he should also be the calming voice of reason and the one to descalate everything. Even if the quotes in post #24 are verbatim and the TO was perfectly calm confirming he would have him thrown out of the store and then actually discussing it was at best passive aggressive and the wrong choice.

So you are saying that he didn't ask to have the player kicked from the store? Do you know this first hand? The TOs "anger" could certainly be relative and subject to interpretation but asking to have someone removed from the store is not subjective and it happened or it didn't. If you were there and know first hand please chime in. The OP clearly has his issues and was in the wrong. But if the TO was loud, angry and or asked to have the player removed from the store he is in line for accepting some responsibility and some self reflection. Agree or disagree?

The TO was neither loud nor angry. If he were, I would have noticed.

I do not have first hand knowledge of the TO's interaction with the manager in this particular instance, but I have seen enough of their other interactions to be completely confident that if the TO had wanted xBear gone the manager would have complied. Because the manager trusts the TO's judgment (weird, right, you'd think if you were going to make someone a TO you'd want to second guess them at every available opportunity).

Also, charles, have you actually read the thread? Both Mynock Delta and rytackle were there, how have you not noticed that?

I'm sorry but did you miss the exchange as related by an on-looker?

I was standing right behind you when the incident in question took place. This is exactly what went down:

TO: "Hey, make sure you apply that final damage card."

You: "No, it's meaningless it doesn't really matter at all."

TO:"I'm afraid I have to insist; it's mostly meaningless but clear in the rules."

You: "No, it's meaningless you can't make me."

TO: "Actually...I am the judge today. Just burn the card it's the tournament rule"

You: "What, are you going to kick me out of the tournament?"

TO: "If you refuse, and continue to be combative, yes."

You: "I'm not going to. Are you going to physically drag me out of the store?"

At this point the TO went to talk to the store owner for a second opinion. If I remember correctly you did NOT end up getting thrown out. Get off your high horse man, your own stubbornness got you into that situation, not the TO. Anyone who listens to the podcast knows that if my co-host was out of line I would be the first to call him out for it. He handled it in a professional manor, and you're the one who seems to think he was on some kind of "crazy power trip". He called me out earlier in the tournament for accidently rolling 4 green dice, even though it was almost certain I would evade the one hit with 3 and a focus (with Autothrusters). I didn't go "No I won't roll three, it doesn't matter anyway", I just rerolled the 3 dice. He did that all day like a GOOD JUDGE SHOULD. You weren't being singled out, and it's your own fault you're in this situation. I hope you find no sympathy here, because calling out one of the best members of the community has certainly cost you mine.

Why shouldn't I believe at least his objective remarks?

Well as I posted above, there are reports from people who were there who completely contradict what the OP said.

Plus what you're taking one person's statement as fact, without questioning it, someone who was clearly upset, which means they are never completely reliable witnesses.

Then you have someone who came here with the intended purpose of slandering the person running this event. Which again means you have to at a minimum question what they're saying.

Then there's the fact that you weren't there either so you have no idea if those statements are even true or not.

Why shouldn't I believe at least his objective remarks?

Well as I posted above, there are reports from people who were there who completely contradict what the OP said.

Plus what you're taking one person's statement as fact, without questioning it, someone who was clearly upset, which means they are never completely reliable witnesses.

Then you have someone who came here with the intended purpose of slandering the person running this event. Which again means you have to at a minimum question what they're saying.

Then there's the fact that you weren't there either so you have no idea if those statements are even true or not.

So far no one seemed to be present for the ejection discussion.

Did you read post #24 and #32?

I'm not saying I know I'm right

And yet you make statements of fact about what the TO did and how he acted...

So far no one seemed to be present for the ejection discussion.

Did you read post #24 and #32?

I'm not saying I know I'm right

And yet you make statements of fact about what the TO did and how he acted...

Which statements of fact. I have stated many times, "if" and referred to subjectivity. I don't know. But I do know you can appear calm and still be angry. I do know you can be a "nice guy" and valued member of a community and still be arrogant. I don't know what happened. I do know some people have very big egos.

Which statements of fact.

You've stated that the TO was angry and tried to get the OP kicked out a number of times. Yet you actually have nothing to back up a single one of those statements.

We do however have both the TO's statements and two 3rd parties who backs up what the TO said. All of which make the OP's statements of what happened seem like out and out lies designed to get sympathy here.

Why are we back on topic? This thread is supposed to be about wookies and bacon at this point.

What the over under on the amount of times that the links to posts from people in attendance will be ignored, while in the same breath stating you don't know what went on you weren't there?

Additionally, what exactly is a TO to do when a player decides not to follow the rules or the TOs instructions? Is the TO just suppose to let the player do whatever they want? Frankly it seems like the only option is for the TO to say do what I'm telling you or be out of the event.

Charlesanakin is one of those types who cannot admit they were wrong. Ever.

It's almost like he's an X-Bear alt...

What the over under on the amount of times that the links to posts from people in attendance will be ignored, while in the same breath stating you don't know what went on you weren't there?

Additionally, what exactly is a TO to do when a player decides not to follow the rules or the TOs instructions? Is the TO just suppose to let the player do whatever they want? Frankly it seems like the only option is for the TO to say do what I'm telling you or be out of the event.

I'm betting the over, regardless of predictions.

charlesanakin, you fail at reading comprehension. Good day, sir. I SAID GOOD. DAY.

Which part the TO getting angry with the player or the part where he demanded he be thrown out of the store?

You mean the parts that never actually happened?Based on an independent party, the TO never got angry and never demanded anything. It was the OP who brought up the whole thing about getting kicked out of the store.You really owe it to everyone to go and read what actually happened before you start to lay blame or accuse people of something they didn't actually do.

Would it have been such a bad thing if he was thrown out of the store?

Someone was told to simply draw a few extra damage cards and they needlessly escalated.

Chewbacon

Vandor were you there?

Were you @charlesanakin?

Oh please, give me a break. Kicking someone out is a simply excessive and the other TO in fact, disagreed.

Other TO actually gave the go ahead, he was the employee, the none employee decided against it. The none employee TO also didn't suggest it, the player in the wrong did as a challenge. You really should read all the pages before jumping to conclusions.

Not only challenging a TO that's enforcing a rule, but also being wrong about a ruling is more then grounds for ejection from the tournament.

Well, if it is anything like what you just wrote, no thanks. And come on, who always reads every page before commenting anyways?

It should go without saying, but if the OP facts are wrong then it should be obvious that the conclusions I may have made dont accurately apply.

This entire thread is an example of not flying casual. /slaythread

And come on, who always reads every page before commenting anyways?

At 20+ pages, I don't blame people for not reading the whole thread, but 12 pages is hardly a lot to ask, especially when the purpose of your post is to disagree with what others are saying without the context of the rest of the thread. There are times when I don't post because I know I haven't read the whole thread. There are other times that I post without reading the whole thread, but I make that explicit in my post and keep an open mind, remembering that I don't have the whole story.

And come on, who always reads every page before commenting anyways?

At 20+ pages, I don't blame people for not reading the whole thread, but 12 pages is hardly a lot to ask, especially when the purpose of your post is to disagree with what others are saying without the context of the rest of the thread. There are times when I don't post because I know I haven't read the whole thread. There are other times that I post without reading the whole thread, but I make that explicit in my post and keep an open mind, remembering that I don't have the whole story.

Sure bud, speak for yourself, 200+ posts now is a lot. It is not that interesting to me, now all the changes with FAQ on the other hand...