So how about spectating what looks like casual games on Vassal? I do point rules violations out in these situations. And missed triggers too. But only after they are really missed. (Something like, for next round remeber you have gunner o that ship). Is this bad form?

If you're a stranger, I would avoid that sort of behavior. Save it for after the match is over, not just after the round. That's what I would suggest.

Also, there's no guarantee that what you think is a casual match isn't really a league match of some sort, so you could be interfering with a game that has consequences for other players down the road.

and if the current game state is not legal, judges have every right to intervene.

Is anyone saying otherwise? Because if they are I think they're wrong. A judge can and should intervene when they see something that is breaking the rules. Which of course is different from optimal play.

But if you are not a judge, then no you don't have any place pointing out what you think are rules violations to the players.

DecisionFire and Amraam01 are both suggesting that a judge must not intervene unless asked to by a player. I think that's wrong.

My philosophy is, "If you see something, say something," with the caveat that if you are a spectator, you can only say it to the judge and not directly to the players.

My points are illustrating the potential bias if you are actively engaged so you really have to be careful when interrupting games because you cant be everywhere at once. So calling on one players error while missing others is problematic. I have seen it firsthand too where a judge viewing and officiating on a screen in the next room has stopped action several times to questions bumps and triggers, has lead to several minutes discussions as both players had to explain the situation and the judge ended up misunderstanding the situation. As a judge you of course have some interpretation of how to perform but following FFG guidance seems like the best way for a reason since there is only 1 judge typically.

"An event may have any number of judges, including none. A judge is well versed in the game’s rules and regulations. A judge’s responsibilities include assisting players to resolve disputes and answering questions regarding the game’s rules. When a judge is not actively performing judge duties, he or she is a spectator and should communicate this change in status clearly."

This it! I think watching the world tourney (Previous too) closely is a good example how a judge should perform.

I like how M:TG handles spectating, you cannot comment on anything in the game unless you witness an illegal game state in which case you're supposed to speak up.

That said, FFG seems to not even allow that much so keep your comments to yourself or limited to things which are non-tactical or even related to advice.

I suggest people to read the "tournament regulations" when going to a premier tier event.

https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/a9/af/a9af1e4a-41d1-4dee-8cc2-a5cedee684bf/x-wing_tournament_regulations_v121_text_version.pdf

Calling a T.O. can disturb the game as an spectator. Keep that in mind.

If both players fail at the responsability of keeping following the rules, its both their fault. Even if one get the short end of the stick.

Nowhere in the regulations, Judges and/or Marshalls should audit every step of every rule in a match. Actually, their jobs is to solve disputes (among other things, sure).

They are spectators, too when they are not exercing their function.

Spectator

A spectator is any individual at a tournament not actively engaging in another role. Spectators

must not disturb an ongoing game, and cannot provide any input or assistance to players during

their games

Also, it's the responsability of both players to catch errors.

I don't buy this argument one bit. If a person is designated as a judge for a tournament, that means they ARE actively engaging in a role other than spectator for the ENTIRE tournament. Their judge status doesn't turn on and off as rules questions come up.

This is an interesting corner case for me. I do commentary for the X-Wing streams my local game store runs. In the last tournament, I played a dual role as being a judge who can be called through for rulings in addition to my normal job as a commentator. I was called through several times to make rulings on games throughout the stream.

While observing some of the stream games I previously made sure that any 'must' rulings are observed and played through. Any 'may' rulings I let slide because that is up to the players to remember. However, the must rulings in my mind are an absolute and cannot be ignored or missed. Maybe I was in the wrong, all I know is that in future I may just stay out of any ruling full stop.

I think that's absolutely warranted. All players are responsible for maintaining a legal game state, and if the current game state is not legal, judges have every right to intervene.

Well straight from ffg this is how they describe a judge,

"A judge’s responsibilities include assisting players to resolve disputes and answering questions regarding the game’s rules."

They did not describe it as officiating games to ensure rules are correctly played. Besides, a judge is only human and can make mistakes too. So imagine a situation where a judge points on one players error and corrects it but happens to miss the other players error later one. Now you injecting bias and unfairness if the judges full attention is not given fairly. And what about the other games? Why give scrutiny to only one game when error could be occurring on the table on the other side of the room. See the problem if you are actively engaged?

You're saying cops shouldn't pull people over because they can't be everywhere at once. You see how that makes no sense right?

Everytime a rule is misplayed, broken, maybe even deliberately disregard the game (and by extension the event) has its integrity compromised. Every effort should be made to prevent that from occuring. That includes player diligence and care. It also includes having judges that know the rules and makes sure they are followed whenever possible.

It's better to catch and correct rules violations then sit on your hands in the misguided interest of equity in which every player has equal opportunity to try and pull a fast one.

Judges will absolutely notice some things and not notice others. But in not correcting the things that are noticed you are signaling to the players that the rules are only in play if their opponent is aware of them. That is an unequivocally bad environment to cultivate. It's something that exists in some other games and results in a hilarious amount of cheating and gamesmanship. Because after all the judges hands are tied unless the other player notices what's going on, the other player that is probably more then little distracted at various points of the game. Just having additional sets if eyes on the games with an ability to correct errors has a chilling effect on those that may have otherwise been willing to make those errors intentionally, because now the risk is higher.

Are you seriously of the opinion that a judge should just watch a player completely fudge a maneuver, roll the incorrect number of dice, or outright misuse a rule; and do nothing unless asked to by the other player?

and if the current game state is not legal, judges have every right to intervene.

Is anyone saying otherwise? Because if they are I think they're wrong. A judge can and should intervene when they see something that is breaking the rules. Which of course is different from optimal play.

But if you are not a judge, then no you don't have any place pointing out what you think are rules violations to the players.

Yes multiple other posters are literally stating otherwise on multiple occasions.

and if the current game state is not legal, judges have every right to intervene.

Is anyone saying otherwise? Because if they are I think they're wrong. A judge can and should intervene when they see something that is breaking the rules. Which of course is different from optimal play.

But if you are not a judge, then no you don't have any place pointing out what you think are rules violations to the players.

DecisionFire and Amraam01 are both suggesting that a judge must not intervene unless asked to by a player. I think that's wrong.

My philosophy is, "If you see something, say something," with the caveat that if you are a spectator, you can only say it to the judge and not directly to the players.

My points are illustrating the potential bias if you are actively engaged so you really have to be careful when interrupting games because you cant be everywhere at once. So calling on one players error while missing others is problematic. I have seen it firsthand too where a judge viewing and officiating on a screen in the next room has stopped action several times to questions bumps and triggers, has lead to several minutes discussions as both players had to explain the situation and the judge ended up misunderstanding the situation. As a judge you of course have some interpretation of how to perform but following FFG guidance seems like the best way for a reason since there is only 1 judge typically.

"An event may have any number of judges, including none. A judge is well versed in the game’s rules and regulations. A judge’s responsibilities include assisting players to resolve disputes and answering questions regarding the game’s rules. When a judge is not actively performing judge duties, he or she is a spectator and should communicate this change in status clearly."

This it! I think watching the world tourney (Previous too) closely is a good example how a judge should perform.

You also have to realize that is not an exhaustive list of duties that a judge may have throughout a tournament right?

I suggest people to read the "tournament regulations" when going to a premier tier event.

https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/a9/af/a9af1e4a-41d1-4dee-8cc2-a5cedee684bf/x-wing_tournament_regulations_v121_text_version.pdf

Calling a T.O. can disturb the game as an spectator. Keep that in mind.

If both players fail at the responsability of keeping following the rules, its both their fault. Even if one get the short end of the stick.

Nowhere in the regulations, Judges and/or Marshalls should audit every step of every rule in a match. Actually, their jobs is to solve disputes (among other things, sure).

They are spectators, too when they are not exercing their function.

Spectator

A spectator is any individual at a tournament not actively engaging in another role. Spectators

must not disturb an ongoing game, and cannot provide any input or assistance to players during

their games

Also, it's the responsability of both players to catch errors.

I don't buy this argument one bit. If a person is designated as a judge for a tournament, that means they ARE actively engaging in a role other than spectator for the ENTIRE tournament. Their judge status doesn't turn on and off as rules questions come up.

This is an interesting corner case for me. I do commentary for the X-Wing streams my local game store runs. In the last tournament, I played a dual role as being a judge who can be called through for rulings in addition to my normal job as a commentator. I was called through several times to make rulings on games throughout the stream.

While observing some of the stream games I previously made sure that any 'must' rulings are observed and played through. Any 'may' rulings I let slide because that is up to the players to remember. However, the must rulings in my mind are an absolute and cannot be ignored or missed. Maybe I was in the wrong, all I know is that in future I may just stay out of any ruling full stop.

I think that's absolutely warranted. All players are responsible for maintaining a legal game state, and if the current game state is not legal, judges have every right to intervene.

Well straight from ffg this is how they describe a judge,

"A judge’s responsibilities include assisting players to resolve disputes and answering questions regarding the game’s rules."

They did not describe it as officiating games to ensure rules are correctly played. Besides, a judge is only human and can make mistakes too. So imagine a situation where a judge points on one players error and corrects it but happens to miss the other players error later one. Now you injecting bias and unfairness if the judges full attention is not given fairly. And what about the other games? Why give scrutiny to only one game when error could be occurring on the table on the other side of the room. See the problem if you are actively engaged?

You're saying cops shouldn't pull people over because they can't be everywhere at once. You see how that makes no sense right?

Everytime a rule is misplayed, broken, maybe even deliberately disregard the game (and by extension the event) has its integrity compromised. Every effort should be made to prevent that from occuring. That includes player diligence and care. It also includes having judges that know the rules and makes sure they are followed whenever possible.

It's better to catch and correct rules violations then sit on your hands in the misguided interest of equity in which every player has equal opportunity to try and pull a fast one.

Judges will absolutely notice some things and not notice others. But in not correcting the things that are noticed you are signaling to the players that the rules are only in play if their opponent is aware of them. That is an unequivocally bad environment to cultivate. It's something that exists in some other games and results in a hilarious amount of cheating and gamesmanship. Because after all the judges hands are tied unless the other player notices what's going on, the other player that is probably more then little distracted at various points of the game. Just having additional sets if eyes on the games with an ability to correct errors has a chilling effect on those that may have otherwise been willing to make those errors intentionally, because now the risk is higher.

Are you seriously of the opinion that a judge should just watch a player completely fudge a maneuver, roll the incorrect number of dice, or outright misuse a rule; and do nothing unless asked to by the other player?

Well FFG explicitly states that it is the players responsibility to ensure the rules that the game state is correct, it is not the judge or officials responsibility. The judges are precisely not a cop, but really a mediator and answers questions. If there is a problem it ultimately is up your opponent to bring it up, as you cant expect a judge to officiate. I am sure if they expected a judge to act as you suggest they would have described it that way.

and if the current game state is not legal, judges have every right to intervene.

Is anyone saying otherwise? Because if they are I think they're wrong. A judge can and should intervene when they see something that is breaking the rules. Which of course is different from optimal play.

But if you are not a judge, then no you don't have any place pointing out what you think are rules violations to the players.

DecisionFire and Amraam01 are both suggesting that a judge must not intervene unless asked to by a player. I think that's wrong.

My philosophy is, "If you see something, say something," with the caveat that if you are a spectator, you can only say it to the judge and not directly to the players.

My points are illustrating the potential bias if you are actively engaged so you really have to be careful when interrupting games because you cant be everywhere at once. So calling on one players error while missing others is problematic. I have seen it firsthand too where a judge viewing and officiating on a screen in the next room has stopped action several times to questions bumps and triggers, has lead to several minutes discussions as both players had to explain the situation and the judge ended up misunderstanding the situation. As a judge you of course have some interpretation of how to perform but following FFG guidance seems like the best way for a reason since there is only 1 judge typically.

"An event may have any number of judges, including none. A judge is well versed in the game’s rules and regulations. A judge’s responsibilities include assisting players to resolve disputes and answering questions regarding the game’s rules. When a judge is not actively performing judge duties, he or she is a spectator and should communicate this change in status clearly."

This it! I think watching the world tourney (Previous too) closely is a good example how a judge should perform.

You also have to realize that is not an exhaustive list of duties that a judge may have throughout a tournament right?

Of course! The judge could announce, please hand your damage deck to you opponent and count the cards for instance. If a player is not placing tokens on the board the judge could point it out etc. I just saying be conservative on how you act but really if it in your judgment to say something, say it! Just be careful and try to avoid if you can.

and if the current game state is not legal, judges have every right to intervene.

Is anyone saying otherwise? Because if they are I think they're wrong. A judge can and should intervene when they see something that is breaking the rules. Which of course is different from optimal play.

But if you are not a judge, then no you don't have any place pointing out what you think are rules violations to the players.

DecisionFire and Amraam01 are both suggesting that a judge must not intervene unless asked to by a player. I think that's wrong.

My philosophy is, "If you see something, say something," with the caveat that if you are a spectator, you can only say it to the judge and not directly to the players.

My points are illustrating the potential bias if you are actively engaged so you really have to be careful when interrupting games because you cant be everywhere at once. So calling on one players error while missing others is problematic. I have seen it firsthand too where a judge viewing and officiating on a screen in the next room has stopped action several times to questions bumps and triggers, has lead to several minutes discussions as both players had to explain the situation and the judge ended up misunderstanding the situation. As a judge you of course have some interpretation of how to perform but following FFG guidance seems like the best way for a reason since there is only 1 judge typically.

"An event may have any number of judges, including none. A judge is well versed in the game’s rules and regulations. A judge’s responsibilities include assisting players to resolve disputes and answering questions regarding the game’s rules. When a judge is not actively performing judge duties, he or she is a spectator and should communicate this change in status clearly."

This it! I think watching the world tourney (Previous too) closely is a good example how a judge should perform.

You also have to realize that is not an exhaustive list of duties that a judge may have throughout a tournament right?

Of course! The judge could announce, please hand your damage deck to you opponent and count the cards for instance. If a player is not placing tokens on the board the judge could point it out etc. I just saying be conservative on how you act but really if it in your judgment to say something, say it! Just be careful and try to avoid if you can.

I would say it comes down to disturbance, if the amount of disturbance you cause is more than the impact of the mistake, I would be quiet about it. Especially if I had only just got to the table. However if a player continually makes mistakes in his favour or it's obvious that something is iffy, ofc get involved. I have got to the end of a game before and went to the TO and suggested he keeps an eye on an opponents next game.

...

I would say it comes down to disturbance, if the amount of disturbance you cause is more than the impact of the mistake, I would be quiet about it. Especially if I had only just got to the table. However if a player continually makes mistakes in his favour or it's obvious that something is iffy, ofc get involved. I have got to the end of a game before and went to the TO and suggested he keeps an eye on an opponents next game.

That is a perfect reason for a judge to now get involved. There was a complaint, now the judge can spend time and energy investigating, watching, correcting a player. Now, there is some cause to justify additional scrutiny.

I try to stay completely silent when watching because otherwise i start reminding people of things. 9/10 of the time when i catch myself doing that i apologize and walk away. Really dang hard to not enforce rules when you are usually the first person people ask questions lol

I had hoped we were just talking past each other but since you've gone so far as to suggest that players are the only ones responsible for ensuring rules are followed, not judges or marshalls, I guess that isn't the case.

I asked if if you were aware that the judges description you keep quoting isn't an exhaustive list of a judges responsibilities, not just because it isn't worded as such but because there is another FFG document that goes in to more detail. The X-wing document tells you to go look there for the full description of any leader position, so I'm unsure why you've only been quoting the X-wing document.

In the Fundemental Event Document it details that a Marshall''s duties include "• Determining if unsporting conduct has occurred and what the appropriate remedy for the situation is. In cases where disqualification of a participant is possible, the marshal will fully apprise the organizer of the situation and assist them in making an informed decision

about a disqualification.". Unsporting conduct includes a bunch of things including cheating, collusion, and stalling. All of which are things possibly observed by a Judge or Marshall without having been called over by either player. Collusion specifically as its something that could be involving both players, and thus extremely unlikely to involve a call for a judge to deal with.

A judges responsibilities include "Assisting players and spectators. The primary way that judges do so is by resolving infractions or answering questions of the game rules and event regulations as they arise. Judges also help to resolve disputes between players regarding the game state. Their determinations are subject to review by leaders holding the marshal responsibilities." I'd like to specifically make note of the resolving infractions portion of that, which has absolutely no qualification that they only do so if asked to by one of the involved players.

This idea that a Judge or Marshall should just sit in their hands and watch a player break the games rules, which is possibility cheating, and do nothing about it is both unsupported by the event documents and encouraging players to engage on unsporting behavior.

I like how M:TG handles spectating, you cannot comment on anything in the game unless you witness an illegal game state in which case you're supposed to speak up.

That's exactly how it should be.

The FFG rule, by contrast, is designed to allow cheating.

Some folks seem to be under the impression that other folks don't know what the rule is . We do. We know that spectators are not permitted to point out rules mistakes.

That's a different question from whether the rule should be that.

Given that the rule encourages the unscrupulous to cheat, by assisting the cheater in getting away with it, no, the rule should be different. It should be exactly like the M:tG rule ... if players are creating an illegal game state, spectators should be allowed -- encouraged -- to say so. If the players disagree, then call a judge.

Nobody except a cheater wants to win (or lose) a game because the game is being played against the rules.

I had hoped we were just talking past each other but since you've gone so far as to suggest that players are the only ones responsible, nor judges or marshalls, I guess that isn't the case.

I asked if if you were aware that the judges description you keep quoting isn't an exhaustive list of a judges responsibilities, not just because it isn't worded as such but because there is another FFG document that goes in to more detail. The X-wing document tells you to go look there for the full description of any leader position, so I'm unsure why you've only been quoting the X-wing document.

In the Fundemental Event Document it details that a Marshall''s duties include "• Determining if unsporting conduct has occurred and what the appropriate remedy for the situation is. In cases where disqualification of a participant is possible, the marshal will fully apprise the organizer of the situation and assist them in making an informed decision

about a disqualification.". Unsporting conduct includes a bunch of things including cheating, collusion, and stalling. All of which are things possibly observed by a Judge or Marshall without having been called over by either player. Collusion specifically as its something that could be involving both players, and thus extremely unlikely to involve a call for a judge to deal with.

A judges responsibilities include "Assisting players and spectators. The primary way that judges do so is by resolving infractions or answering questions of the game rules and event regulations as they arise. Judges also help to resolve disputes between players regarding the game state. Their determinations are subject to review by leaders holding the marshal responsibilities." I'd like to specifically make note of the resolving infractions portion of that, which has absolutely no qualification that they only do so if asked to by one of the involved players.

This idea that a Judge or Marshall should just sit in their hands and watch a player break the games rules, which is possibility cheating, and do nothing about it is both unsupported by the event documents and encouraging players to engage on unsporting behavior.

Mistakes are simply mistakes and there is a whole section about missed opportunities. Lumping mistakes with unsporting conduct is quite an accusation. My point is a judge cant be everywhere and watch everything so applying the "cop" power should be fair to everyone and consistently applied. Simply watching one game because the judge is also playing next to another player and pointing out every infraction is probably not a fair way to do it.

Simply watching one game because the judge is also playing next to another player and pointing out every infraction is probably not a fair way to do it.

" ... because if one person isn't stopped from breaking the rules, nobody should be stopped from breaking the rules"?

I don't understand how this has gone on for 4 pages! A spectator should not get involved with other players' games IN ANY WAY! This even includes talking to a TO about other player's games. X-wing has a mechanic built in for players to resolve disputes on their own if both parties agree. The only case I would EVER agree that a spectator should interfere in another's game is if the offense witnessed will effect the fairness of the tournament for others.

Be polite and let others play their game.

Simply watching one game because the judge is also playing next to another player and pointing out every infraction is probably not a fair way to do it.

" ... because if one person isn't stopped from breaking the rules, nobody should be stopped from breaking the rules"?

That is the question, isnt it? I think to be fair judge you have to a consistent plan beforehand. Let's say a a large based ship is making a hard one and bumps a ship. The players dont use extenders to make the correct angle. You correct this so the ship for player 1, is at the correct angle and now has arc which blasts players' 2 last ship off the map and the player 2 now misses the cut. Meanwhile on the other side of the room, the players missed a rebel captive trigger preventing a double stress on a sontir. The sontir player ends up winning the match and ultimately the tournament. Do you only interrupt for mandatory triggers? What about proper placement? How much time will you observe a match? Are you announcing you are looking for rules violations or are a spectator before you observe? A player shoots out of order do you stop? When do you allow a missed opportunity to go by if your watching? Are you more or less involved as the day goes on?

Is the tournament fair in your eyes? Mistakes are happening at any given time at multiple games potentially, and extra scrutiny in one place has more of the potential to open a can of worms I'd say. Especially, since it is the players responsibility, and there has been long threads about both players obligations on that here, to ensure the game state is correct.

There is no functional difference between cheating and just messing up a rule, the only difference is intent. If I roll 4 dice instead of the 3 I should be rolling, did I just forget the active critical or am I aware of it and choosing to act like I'm forgetting it? You have suggested that a Judge or Marshall should do nothing about that situation, which is possibly cheating, unless the other player asks them to. That makes no sense and is not in keeping with the duties described to those positions. In actuality that level of passive judging would make it impossible for a Judge or Marshall to preform their duties as described. It would make it impossible for the TO to ensure the integrity of the event (which is one of their duties) if Judges and Marshalls are expected to allow players to violate rules and not correct and assess the situation.

So Judges and Marshalls shouldn't act as a "cop" because they can't be everywhere and see everything? Even actual cops can't be everywhere and see everything, and yet they are expected to enforce the law. You're analogy is only harming your position.

And additionally since you brought up Missed Opportunities, I'd ask you to go read that section if the rules. You erroneously paraphrased it earlier in your assertion that FFG has explicitly said that only players are responsible for ensuring the rules are followed. What it actually says is that all players are responsible for the rules, not only the players. Meaning that just because it isn't your ship, your upgrade, or in your advantage doesn't mean you can allow the rules to be violated. Most cerainly that section of the rules doesn't in anyway restrict the responsibility of ensuring rules are followed to only the players as you had suggested.

Simply watching one game because the judge is also playing next to another player and pointing out every infraction is probably not a fair way to do it.

" ... because if one person isn't stopped from breaking the rules, nobody should be stopped from breaking the rules"?

That is the question, isnt it? I think to be fair judge you have to a consistent plan beforehand. Let's say a a large based ship is making a hard one and bumps a ship. The players dont use extenders to make the correct angle. You correct this so the ship for player 1, is at the correct angle and now has arc which blasts players' 2 last ship off the map and the player 2 now misses the cut. Meanwhile on the other side of the room, the players missed a rebel captive trigger preventing a double stress on a sontir. The sontir player ends up winning the match and ultimately the tournament. Do you only interrupt for mandatory triggers? What about proper placement? How much time will you observe a match? Are you announcing you are looking for rules violations or are a spectator before you observe? A player shoots out of order do you stop? When do you allow a missed opportunity to go by if your watching? Are you more or less involved as the day goes on?

Is the tournament fair in your eyes? Mistakes are happening at any given time at multiple games potentially, and extra scrutiny in one place has more of the potential to open a can of worms I'd say. Especially, since it is the players responsibility, and there has been long threads about both players obligations on that here, to ensure the game state is correct.

This is especially true because in correcting various rules errors you are both ensuring players correctly understand what the rules are and that there are other eyes on the game from time to time other then just their opponents. The benefit if this is that in cases where a player is making an error out of actual ignorance of a rule they won't continue to do so in subsequent games. And in situations in which they are making an error out of feigned ignorance they now have to worry about not just their opponent catching them in the act.

I don't understand how this has gone on for 4 pages! A spectator should not get involved with other players' games IN ANY WAY! This even includes talking to a TO about other player's games. X-wing has a mechanic built in for players to resolve disputes on their own if both parties agree. The only case I would EVER agree that a spectator should interfere in another's game is if the offense witnessed will effect the fairness of the tournament for others.

Be polite and let others play their game.

Your own "in any way" statement you immediately invalidate by your own opinion on intervention.

Additionally I can't understand how what would result in a Judge stepping in is all that difficult to understand.

Are the rules being followed? Yes, don't get involved. No, get involved.

It is completely legal for a player to not take an action it is not legal for a player to forget a mandatory trigger. It is completely legal for a player to not shoot with any given ship it is not legal for a player to incorrectly execute a maneuver.

If the Judge knows the rules, which they are suppose to by virtue of the position, it is not difficult to know if what's going on is legal or not legal.

There is no functional difference between cheating and just messing up a rule, the only difference is intent. If I roll 4 dice instead of the 3 I should be rolling, did I just forget the active critical or am I aware of it and choosing to act like I'm forgetting it? You have suggested that a Judge or Marshall should do nothing about that situation, which is possibly cheating, unless the other player asks them to. That makes no sense and is not in keeping with the duties described to those positions. In actuality that level of passive judging would make it impossible for a Judge or Marshall to preform their duties as described. It would make it impossible for the TO to ensure the integrity of the event (which is one of their duties) if Judges and Marshalls are expected to allow players to violate rules and not correct and assess the situation.

So Judges and Marshalls shouldn't act as a "cop" because they can't be everywhere and see everything? Even actual cops can't be everywhere and see everything, and yet they are expected to enforce the law. You're analogy is only harming your position.

And additionally since you brought up Missed Opportunities, I'd ask you to go read that section if the rules. You erroneously paraphrased it earlier in your assertion that FFG has explicitly said that only players are responsible for ensuring the rules are followed. What it actually says is that all players are responsible for the rules, not only the players. Meaning that just because it isn't your ship, your upgrade, or in your advantage doesn't mean you can allow the rules to be violated. Most cerainly that section of the rules doesn't in anyway restrict the responsibility of ensuring rules are followed to only the players as you had suggested.

In general yes, get involved when asked. Does this mean never get involved unasked? No. This is a general rule of thumb. Seems reasonable to walk around and check components. But, to walk around and act like a cop and give warning or dish out punishment is not the intent, precisely because the role is not describe to be a "cop". I have never seem a tourney ran that way so I dont think it is much of a problem.

"Players are expected to follow the game’s rules, remembering to perform actions and use card effects when indicated. It is all players’ responsibility to maintain a proper game state, and to ensure that all mandatory abilities and game steps are acknowledged. If a player forgets to use an effect during the timing specified by that effect, he or she cannot retroactively use it without the consent of his or her opponent. Players are expected to act with respect and not intentionally distract or rush an opponent with the intent of forcing a missed opportunity."

Player defined as:

"A player is an individual that plays X-Wing at the event. A player must bring all components they need to play a game of X-Wing. When a player is not actively engaged in a game of X-Wing, he or she is a spectator "

So the game in question refers to the players actually in the game not simply being your neighbor next door to ensure all rules are followed.

I really see here two totally different opinions, both of them have their reasonable arguments.

"Spectator:
A spectator is any individual at a tournament not actively engaging in another role. Spectators
must not disturb an ongoing game, and cannot provide any input or assistance to players during
their games."

At least in the above paragraph I don't see a direct prohibition not to point out a possible significant error during game play. "Input" and "assistance" are meant in regard to helping a player, giving them tips. And "disturbing" is meant not to make noise or something else etc.

Not saying anything when someone is for example boosting in order to bump into an enemy ship doesn't sound right for me.

I don't see a direct prohibition not to point out a possible significant error during game play.

I think the term input covers it all. This doesn't just mean you can't point out when someone is about to make a tactical mistake, it means you're not supposed to make any sort of input into the game.

Also disturbing doesn't just mean not making rude noises or something. I means exactly what it says, don't disturb the people playing.

It's not up to anyone other than the players and the TO to have any sort of impact on someone else's game.

There is no functional difference between cheating and just messing up a rule, the only difference is intent. If I roll 4 dice instead of the 3 I should be rolling, did I just forget the active critical or am I aware of it and choosing to act like I'm forgetting it? You have suggested that a Judge or Marshall should do nothing about that situation, which is possibly cheating, unless the other player asks them to. That makes no sense and is not in keeping with the duties described to those positions. In actuality that level of passive judging would make it impossible for a Judge or Marshall to preform their duties as described. It would make it impossible for the TO to ensure the integrity of the event (which is one of their duties) if Judges and Marshalls are expected to allow players to violate rules and not correct and assess the situation.

So Judges and Marshalls shouldn't act as a "cop" because they can't be everywhere and see everything? Even actual cops can't be everywhere and see everything, and yet they are expected to enforce the law. You're analogy is only harming your position.

And additionally since you brought up Missed Opportunities, I'd ask you to go read that section if the rules. You erroneously paraphrased it earlier in your assertion that FFG has explicitly said that only players are responsible for ensuring the rules are followed. What it actually says is that all players are responsible for the rules, not only the players. Meaning that just because it isn't your ship, your upgrade, or in your advantage doesn't mean you can allow the rules to be violated. Most cerainly that section of the rules doesn't in anyway restrict the responsibility of ensuring rules are followed to only the players as you had suggested.

In general yes, get involved when asked. Does this mean never get involved unasked? No. This is a general rule of thumb. Seems reasonable to walk around and check components. But, to walk around and act like a cop and give warning or dish out punishment is not the intent, precisely because the role is not describe to be a "cop". I have never seem a tourney ran that way so I dont think it is much of a problem.

"Players are expected to follow the game’s rules, remembering to perform actions and use card effects when indicated. It is all players’ responsibility to maintain a proper game state, and to ensure that all mandatory abilities and game steps are acknowledged. If a player forgets to use an effect during the timing specified by that effect, he or she cannot retroactively use it without the consent of his or her opponent. Players are expected to act with respect and not intentionally distract or rush an opponent with the intent of forcing a missed opportunity."

Player defined as:

"A player is an individual that plays X-Wing at the event. A player must bring all components they need to play a game of X-Wing. When a player is not actively engaged in a game of X-Wing, he or she is a spectator "

So the game in question refers to the players actually in the game not simply being your neighbor next door to ensure all rules are followed.

If it is a Marshall and Judges responsibility to deal with possible unsporting conduct and infractions, which are explicitly stated in the overall duties of both positions, then it is absolutely the intent that they walk around and possibly hand out warnings and penalties when they feel they need to. That is exactly how you prevent cheatimg from becoming a staple of your tournament scene. They can not do the things they are suppose to be doing if they only intercede when asked by the players. If you've never been to a tournament in which a Judge will step on when they see the rules being broken to correct the situation and appraise for any impropriety from the players, then I'm sorry you've only been to poorly run events.

You're are entirely missing the point I was trying to make. I did not on any way suggest that other player intercede in other games. I believe the rules on spectators are quite clear, and the best they can do in that situation is go get a Judge or Marshall and give them a heads up. I, like Jeff Wilder, think those rules should be different but they are what they are. That being said those rules in no way suggest that a Judge or Marshall should not get involved when they see an error.

Earlier in this thread you asserted that FFG "explicitly states that it is the players responsibility to ensure the rules that the game state is correct, it is not the judge or officials responsibility." That statement is in no way true. You've incorrectly paraphrased the Missed Opportunities section of the X-Wing that states all players are responsible for the rules, not only the players. That is exactly what I was pointing out, and has nothing to do with spectators.