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.

I dont know I guess we are going in circles so this will be my last point reiterated.

" It is all players’ responsibility to maintain a proper game state, and to ensure that all mandatory abilities and game steps are acknowledged. "

If it said it is the judges responsibility to ensure the proper game state, games step... I would be all for you of describing a judge as a official, cop, ref etc. But, it simply does not, it states "players". And players defined as:

" When a player is not actively engaged in a game of X-Wing, he or she is a spectator"

Seems reasonable to conclude that the players actively engaged in a game are ultimately responsible not anyone else by definition. My point if you are being an 'active' 'cop', you better do it fairly and know the possible consequences of acting selectively. To be clear not that you cant, just technically it is not your responsibility.

​Thanks to everyone for the enlightening discussion though.

You're quoting only the Missed Opportunity section of the X-wing Event Rules in an effort to determine Judge and Marshall responsibility instead of actually looking to the defenitions of those positions in the Fundemental Event Document which actually details those responsibilities.

That is a shocking level of intellectual dishonesty on the subject, but if you're comfortable with that being your closing argument that's fine by me because it's a terrible one.

I dont know I guess we are going in circles so this will be my last point reiterated.

" It is all players’ responsibility to maintain a proper game state, and to ensure that all mandatory abilities and game steps are acknowledged. "

If it said it is the judges responsibility to ensure the proper game state, games step... I would be all for you of describing a judge as a official, cop, ref etc. But, it simply does not, it states "players". And players defined as:

" When a player is not actively engaged in a game of X-Wing, he or she is a spectator"

Seems reasonable to conclude that the players actively engaged in a game are ultimately responsible not anyone else by definition. My point if you are being an 'active' 'cop', you better do it fairly and know the possible consequences of acting selectively. To be clear not that you cant, just technically it is not your responsibility.

​Thanks to everyone for the enlightening discussion though.

You are misunderstanding the meaning of "responsibility" in this section.

I give you an example from Star Wars: The Card Game, which, like all FFG games these days, has the same phrasing in the rules.

At the beginning of a Dark Side player's turn, during the balance step, the Death Star dial increases. In the early days, people made the argument that increasing the Death Star dial was solely the responsibility of the Dark Side player. If they forgot to advance the dial, it was a missed opportunity and it was too late to do anything about it. (For context, the Dark Side player wins when the Death Star dial reaches 12.) Well, as tie-breakers started becoming an issue, Light Side players realized that since the value on the Death Star dial was the tie-breaker for matches where both players won as the Light Side, it was in their best interest to hope that the Dark Side player forgot to advance the dial. Then, when the Dark Side player figured out that the dial had been missed, the Light Side player would insist that it was too late to fix it. At this point, FFG came out and reinforced the idea that framework events such as the Death Star dial advancing is a mandatory trigger and that both players are responsible for seeing that they occur as they were supposed to. Suddenly, Light Side players who tried to let the Death Star dial be forgotten were in danger of being issued warnings or being disqualified.

So the whole purpose of that statement in the rules is not to give any rule arbitration authority to players. That is not what it means by "responsibility." What it is saying is that if rules are not enforced strictly, BOTH players may be given warnings or disqualifications. You can't just mind your own business. If, for example, you shoot your opponent's ship with Rebel captive, you are just as responsible as them for making sure that mandatory stress gets applied to your attacking ship.

I've got a friend that's pissed that he was winning a match...until the guy's friend shows up and starts pointing things out and helping his strategy. The friend started pointing out all the traps and such my friend (J-bot) was trying to lay. He's still angry about that.

Oh, snap. Did you get his restraining bolt back on quick enough??

I have no issues sticking my nose into casual games, but then again I mostly play in my basement and I tend to interfere a lot with my opponent (She married me so that's okay).

On the other hand, may I give a few examples and I will let you form your own opinions.

Would you appreciate it if spectators ran out onto a football pitch to let the ref know that he missed a call (bonus points if they're naked and it works for oblong hand ball too)? How about a tennis match? Sumo certainly would suck if every drunk salary man was rushing the ring to give advice.

Basically, in all cases it's their game not mine.

I agree, tournament game is the line. Unless it is something amazingly egregious, such as bumping ships or asteroids while the opponent is not looking.

On the other hand, may I give a few examples and I will let you form your own opinions.

Would you appreciate it if spectators ran out onto a football pitch to let the ref know that he missed a call (bonus points if they're naked and it works for oblong hand ball too)? How about a tennis match? Sumo certainly would suck if every drunk salary man was rushing the ring to give advice.

Basically, in all cases it's their game not mine.

I'm sorry, which of these are you implying happens?

(1) An X-Wing player rushes naked onto the Bespin mat, ranting about a missed rule?

(2) Spectators at soccer games don't scream when players are breaking rules?

You seem to be implying either or both of those in your (really, really bad) analogy, so I'm just curious which. Because, of course, neither actually happens. (Thank Christ.)

Spectators pointing out broken rules doesn't just happen at sporting events, it happens at every sporting event.

The umpire or referee (or players) don't always listen or care, but that's a completely different issue.

It seems to me like a good number of people here could happily watch a chess game, see one of the players pawn the other player's rook, and just shrug, because, you know, it's their game, man, and it would be, you know, wrong to interfere.

and it would be, you know, wrong to interfere.

And it would be. Unless you're there in some sort official capacity explicitly given authority to enforce the rules, you keep your mouth shut. It's not your place to interfere with someone else's game unless that's actually your job.

and it would be, you know, wrong to interfere.

And it would be. Unless you're there in some sort official capacity explicitly given authority to enforce the rules, you keep your mouth shut. It's not your place to interfere with someone else's game unless that's actually your job.

No, it wouldn't be "wrong." It would be "against the X-Wing tournament rules."

Those are different things, which I know is tough for some folks to grasp.

And VanorDM's response is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that the current spectator rules in X-Wing are designed to encourage cheating.

He not only would willingly watch a player cheat, and not remakr upon it, he actually believes it is wrong -- i.e., immoral or unethical -- for any spectator to remark upon it.

That point of view -- codified in the spectator rules -- actively encourages and facilitates cheating.

Some folks are in favor of that. Some aren't.

No, it wouldn't be "wrong." It would be "against the X-Wing tournament rules."

Which is enough to make it wrong, and in fact if you do interject in someone else's game you're guilty of cheating.

It also does not actively encourage anything, because you are completely free to go tell the TO because it's the TO's job not yours to enforce the rules.

And VanorDM's response is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that the current spectator rules in X-Wing are designed to encourage cheating.

He not only would willingly watch a player cheat, and not remakr upon it, he actually believes it is wrong -- i.e., immoral or unethical -- for any spectator to remark upon it.

That point of view -- codified in the spectator rules -- actively encourages and facilitates cheating.

Some folks are in favor of that. Some aren't.

I think you're being overly pedantic.

If everyone agrees by a set of rules before they begin a tournament (those are the tournament rules), is it ethical for someone to break those rules? I would say "no." I would say it is wrong to break the rules when my participation in the tournament implies I have agreed to abide by those rules.

I don't advocate letting a rules error slide, but I am saying that the proper response is to notify a judge -- not to intervene of my own accord.

It seems to me like a good number of people here could happily watch a chess game, see one of the players pawn the other player's rook, and just shrug, because, you know, it's their game, man, and it would be, you know, wrong to interfere.

It is funny I just wanted to bring the chess example myself.

I think you're being overly pedantic.

I think it's highly ironic that he believes that he should be allowed to cheat in the name of stopping other people from cheating.

Spectators have no special requirement to actually know the rules, and as such they shouldn't be interjecting with what they believe the rules to be. Especially when they can be completely wrong.

If the TO/Judge is the only person dealing with rule violations then at least highly likely that all cases will be dealt with the same way... As opposed to having 3 to 10 different people trying to enforce 3 to 10 differnet interpretations of the rules.

Or even having someone trying to hide behind the rules to negatively impact someone else's game.

No, it wouldn't be "wrong." It would be "against the X-Wing tournament rules."

Which is enough to make it wrong, and in fact if you do interject in someone else's game you're guilty of cheating.

It also does not actively encourage anything, because you are completely free to go tell the TO because it's the TO's job not yours to enforce the rules.

I just don't understand what the difference is between "don't disturb players", but it is ok to go tot the judge to let him disturb the players with the same matter

So the argument of "disturbing players" doesn't count here. The player would be disturbed in both scenarios.

For me it is not disturbing when a spectator interupts me for a second to tell me I am not allowed to make two bomb actions in one round. This happens during regionals and I am glad he did. It would not be fair for my opponent. Now I know better. Of course, one should know the rules, but sometimes you just don't. This incident was over after 5 seconds of clarification.

So can I "break" a rule to prevent someone to really break a rule?

I think it's highly ironic that he believes that he should be allowed to cheat in the name of stopping other people from cheating.

You have, not surprisingly, once again misunderstood.

I don't think I should be allowed to break the spectator rule without risk of repercussions in order to prevent cheating. What I think, instead, comes down to two things. (Again, this level of complexity will be difficult for some folks to grasp.)

(1) It should not be against the spectator rule to call out broken rules. Again, because the current rules encourages and facilitates cheating.

(2) If I see rule-breaking that cannot be stopped and corrected in time by a TO, I will say something, and I will willingly suffer whatever repercussions come from breaking the current spectator rule.

I just don't understand what the difference is between "don't disturb players", but it is ok to go tot the judge to let him disturb the players with the same matter

Because it's the Judge's responsibility to deal with these kinds of things and not yours. A,lso the judge should have a very good grasp on the rules which spectators may not.

It is not disturbing for me when a spectator interupts me

Good for you, but you don't get to decide what is or isn't disturbing for anyone else.

You have, not surprisingly, once again misunderstood.

And you have not surprisingly ignored everything anyone else has said and think you have the right force your opinion on everyone else.

But thank you for proving my point, that you think it's acceptable for you to cheat in order to stop someone else from doing something you think is cheating.

You have, not surprisingly, once again misunderstood.

And you have not surprisingly ignored everything anyone else has said and think you have the right force your opinion on everyone else.

But thank you for proving my point, that you think it's acceptable for you to cheat in order to stop someone else from doing something you think is cheating.

That's my reading of his posts.. Even though I'm not playing or a TO, because I think I know the rules better than everyone else, I will interject and potentially make someone throw the game because I feel it more important to show my rules superiority than be sportsmanlike.

Also because of this I question his ability to just walk away and not argue till the cows come home if people disagree with his take on the rules.

So let me get this straight. If I am watching a game and witness clear rules violations and keep my mouth shut I am a good sportsman.

Furthermore if I am playing and clearly cheating if someone other than my opponent or the judge says something they are cheating and bad sports while I was only mistaken or confused.

Dumbest policy ever!

So let me get this straight. If I am watching a game and witness clear rules violations and keep my mouth shut I am a good sportsman.

Furthermore if I am playing and clearly cheating if someone other than my opponent or the judge says something they are cheating and bad sports while I was only mistaken or confused.

Dumbest policy ever!

Well that depends. Did you, in the first example, keep your mouth shut to anyone about the rules violation? Because you really should have notified the judge.

If you were cheating and nobody says anything, that doesn't validate your deplorable behavior.

So let me get this straight. If I am watching a game and witness clear rules violations and keep my mouth shut I am a good sportsman.

Furthermore if I am playing and clearly cheating if someone other than my opponent or the judge says something they are cheating and bad sports while I was only mistaken or confused.

Dumbest policy ever!

It's not your job to assume you know the rules better than the two people playing, it's up to the TO or marshals to deal with anything they believe is breaking the rules, if you believe someone is actively cheating talk to the TO.

It really comes down to this.

The Judge/Marshal is supposed to know the rules and know them very well. Spectators may or may not. But even if they do know them, they may not rule the same way the Judge does... That means you now have people playing by different rules.

Or they may simply be wrong, or they may even be trying to throw someone's game because they don't want to face them later on...

I mean what's to stop a spectator from making up some sort of BS designed to give one player an advantage? The Judge by virtue of not supposed to be playing has no reason to do that.

It really comes down to a simple matter of consistency, a judge is going to use the same logic to decide every case so everyone is playing by the same set of rules and rulings... You can't count on that if random spectators are giving their two cents worth, in fact you can count on it not being consistent.

We also have a clear case of RAI in the form of Alex saying that as a spectator he had no place getting involved when someone did something wrong... If the games developer won't let himself get involved when something is clearly being done wrong, then I don't see how anyone else feels they have the right to do so.

That's the point. Any rule that allows people to actively try and cheat is a bad rule and needs changing

There is also the case that the Tournament Organiser should know what is going on in his own tournament, if you as a spectator are stepping in about rules violation he has no knowledge that it has happened, which makes it harder for him to act on further infractions.

It's not allowing people to actively cheat, it's allowing TO who are meant to be in charge of the thing make the call rather than you as an independent spectator stepping in.

It's the difference between someone being a vigilante and someone reporting a crime to the police.