Why would you use pronouns and "someone" and expect people to understand that you were the player being discussed? Also, that example he gave is what you suggested in your example. He was a little abrasive about it, but it is what you were insinuating.

Also to provide another example - spectators are not TOs, and often don't have the qualification to be a TO.

Similar to how an ordinary citizen is not a policeman, and should not try to do police work. He could be even punished by the law if he tries to police somebody...

Whilst average Joe citizen is not a policeman, they do know the law. There is also a thing called citizens arrest. To bring this back to nerd terms, you don't need to be a TO to know the law.

I have been in tournaments where someone has tried to use a HLC from Kaths rear arc, someone didn't know that Poes ability worked every time he was shot at whilst he had a focus token, real basic stuff. I informed the guy that he could still use Poes ability again if he wanted. But if I was some jerk player and didn't let him know, because it was his 5th game or something and he was learning and was ignorant, I would have expected someone let the guy know his options. If your need to win is so great that winning at any cost in a inconsequential space ship game, then maybe this game isn't for you. I am flabbergasted that people would rather see rules violations than say a quick, that is illegal, to make for a fair game.

If you did that at a tournament I was TO'ing at you'd get warned and if you continued you'd be DQ'd and sent out of the store. Why do you think it is your duty to interfere in someone else's game? They may or may not know the rules. It is their game and they will figure it out in time anyway.

A fair game is a game where no outside forces interfere with it. See what I did there.

This has absolutely nothing to do with rules violations at all, never mind if they were intentional or not. Go look at the stream from worlds where Alex Davy - you know, the guy who designed this game and helps make the rules, kept silent after watching a vcx fire out of the rear arc without the phantom docked. This was on a Twitch for everyone to see and a top cut game at Worlds.

Do you walk around budding in people's arguments randomly on the street cause you think you are right and you don't want anyone to get away with anything?

Your justification is ludicrous.

Well lucky I will never have you as a TO, because you failed to read and understand that in my examples I was the player Involved. I did watch that game with the VCX, and I thought it was wrong. If the guy has never played against one he is supposedly going to be up to speed on it. It has an auxiliary fire arc, all he might have known is that it works like a fire spray.

Your last paragraph is laughable and I won't respond to such a stupid example.

Why would you offer an example where you are one of the players involved? We are talking about Spectator involvement. You know the title "Behaviour as Audience" You are not the "audience" if you are a player involved in the game. As a player I certainly do remind newer players of things and have even allowed missed opportunities in big tournaments.

Why would you use pronouns and "someone" and expect people to understand that you were the player being discussed? Also, that example he gave is what you suggested in your example. He was a little abrasive about it, but it is what you were insinuating.

As to his example, he blurred real life and a nerd game. Let's keep it in the realms of reality and not make up stupid examples.

I was using my own games as an example because I would have expected someone to say something if I didn't know you can't shoot a HLC out of an auxiliary arc, or to help a new player know what their ships could do. If I can't beat a guy with 5 games experience because someone told him he could use Poe's ability again if he wanted, I don't deserve to place highly at all anyway.

Why would you use pronouns and "someone" and expect people to understand that you were the player being discussed? Also, that example he gave is what you suggested in your example. He was a little abrasive about it, but it is what you were insinuating.

I used someone because I am using my phone and it is easier to type than a person I was playing against.

As to his example, he blurred real life and a nerd game. Let's keep it in the realms of reality and not make up stupid examples.

.... You used that example first " Whilst average Joe citizen is not a policeman, they do know the law. There is also a thing called citizens arrest. To bring this back to nerd terms, you don't need to be a TO to know the law. " . Also, you can't get mad at people for not understanding what you meant, when you did not write what you meant.

Even if you support the idea of spectators being able to point out rules violations the example being given about Poe's ability is not a rules violation.

It entirely legal to not use Poe's ability. It's a bad idea, but the rules don't say you can't play poorly. Even if the poor play is the result of not knowing the rules, it's still a legal avenue of play. Telling a player that they can use Poe's ability all the time would be coaching. Even if the rules regarding spectators were changed to allow them to point out violations, you would not be able to point out Poe's ability like that.

You're providing your opposition with ammunition for their case by not understanding the situation.

.

Also to provide another example - spectators are not TOs, and often don't have the qualification to be a TO.

Similar to how an ordinary citizen is not a policeman, and should not try to do police work. He could be even punished by the law if he tries to police somebody..

Note how. once again, Hujoe Biggs is talking about providing information , and the argument against information subtly shifts it to claim that Hujoe Biggs is talking about enforcement .

Are people allowed -- even encouraged -- to tell the police about law-breaking? So people can inform , and police can enforce ? Note that, in the context of X-Wing, the players are also the police. The players both have a responsibility for enforcing the rules.

So these folks are saying you can't even inform the people who are responsible for enforcement.

Also to provide another example - spectators are not TOs, and often don't have the qualification to be a TO.

Similar to how an ordinary citizen is not a policeman, and should not try to do police work. He could be even punished by the law if he tries to police somebody..

Note how. once again, Hujoe Biggs is talking about providing information , and the argument against information subtly shifts it to claim that Hujoe Biggs is talking about enforcement .

Are people allowed -- even encouraged -- to tell the police about law-breaking? So people can inform , and police can enforce ?

You do realize you are hurting your own point here right? All anyone is arguing is that people should inform the TO instead of interfering yourself.

.

See, this is the crux. You don't seem to understand that the players are responsible for enforcement of the game rules -- such as legal game state -- as much the TO is. (In practice, they are responsible more than the TO, because the TO is usually spread very thin.)

Spectators should be permitted to inform the people responsible for enforcing the game rules that game rules are being gotten wrong.

And it's not just the TO that's responsible for enforcing game rules.

Also to provide another example - spectators are not TOs, and often don't have the qualification to be a TO.

Similar to how an ordinary citizen is not a policeman, and should not try to do police work. He could be even punished by the law if he tries to police somebody..

Note how. once again, Hujoe Biggs is talking about providing information , and the argument against information subtly shifts it to claim that Hujoe Biggs is talking about enforcement .

Are people allowed -- even encouraged -- to tell the police about law-breaking? So people can inform , and police can enforce ? Note that, in the context of X-Wing, the players are also the police. The players both have a responsibility for enforcing the rules.

So these folks are saying you can't even inform the people who are responsible for enforcement.

since you edited;

It seems that you aren't really reading everyone's posts.

1) everyone is saying don't interfere yourself, get the proper authority (TO)

2) providing information in a game IS enforcement in this case. So your argument that they should be separate falls apart.

3) It can be abused/ gotten wrong either way, as per my example.

4) Most players aren't as knowledgeable as you/ other people on the forum. They are average players.

5) Asking a TO about a rule might avoid interference all together.

edit;

the crux is, not everyone knows the rules. This rule being in place isn't for you or me. It is to keep people who think they are right but are wrong from interfering in other peoples games. If you see something wrong, go get a judge and make sure. Period.

.

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)

Thanks for the bad analogy compliment, man. I tried to come up with some that were as silly as the train of thought that "I am an expert on Xwing and you're doing it wrong...listen to me me me, you're doing it WRONG!" (overheard at a tourney a few months ago from a spectator to player, extra me's for my emphasis) I'm just a very laissez faire kinda guy, different strokes and all though, whatever gets you through the day.

I am certainly no expert on rules or at Xwing, the only thing I seem to do ok in this game is paint stuff. It's just, like, my opinion, man.

Myth-quote of the day-

"I hope you have fun at your Black Squadron party" - Forrest Gump

.

.

It's not always helpful to assume that the floor rules in other systems will apply to this one.

Nevertheless asking that spectators DO NOT interfere is standard across most of the organised play structures I've been involved in. You have to do everything via TO.

It seems that you aren't really reading everyone's posts.

No, what it "seems" is that I'm actually reading a little more closely and with more comprehension than folks are comfortable with in their little echo-chamber.

.

It's not always helpful to assume that the floor rules in other systems will apply to this one.

Nevertheless asking that spectators DO NOT interfere is standard across most of the organised play structures I've been involved in. You have to do everything via TO.

Yup, I would be happy to quote an FFG document on this, if they wouldn't be unfortunately lacking in this department.

But I think we can take other, much bigger vendors and organized play structures as an example.

The Spectator rules are a golden standard across the industry, and there should not be really any discussion about it.

But apparently some people know better than thousands of industry professionals across dozens of games..

From the Fundamental Event Document :

All people present at an event are participating as spectators when not actively engaging in another role. This includes casual observers who may have never heard of the game being played and players who are glancing over at another match between gameplay actions. Spectators have the following responsibilities:

• Refraining from providing outside assistance to players during their games.

• Not disturbing games. This includes discussion of the game in progress, making excessively loud noises, or physically intruding on the players or their gameplay area.

• Respecting a request by a player or leader to not observe a game or games.

Many similar points between this and what you quoted from other systems, though some details from those systems are missing here.

You're working from the assumption that a spectator knows the rules better than the players. When you open up spectators getting involved...

PROS

• Spectators help people follow the rules when they know the rules/interactions better than the players

CONS

• Spectators delay and confuse matches in progress by trying to be helpful when they don't know the rules/interactions as well as they think they do, or aren't up to speed on the details of the game state.
• Spectators have an opportunity to try and coach their friends to affect the outcome of games.

If you ask the spectators to go through the TO then you get most of the benefit of the PROS and none of the adverse effects of the CONS. It's really not that tough to see why the rules are what they are.

.

It seems that you aren't really reading everyone's posts.

No, what it "seems" is that I'm actually reading a little more closely and with more comprehension than folks are comfortable with in their little echo-chamber.

1) everyone is saying don't interfere yourself, get the proper authority (TO)

The players are also a proper authority, if, by "proper authority," you mean "someone who bears responsibility for making sure the rules are followed." That's what you want, right? To make sure the rules are followed?

2) providing information in a game IS enforcement in this case. So your argument that they should be separate falls apart.

No, I'm afraid not. "There's supposed to be a stress from Rebel Captive" is information. The players -- even the TO -- can choose to ignore that information and not enforce the rules. They're quite separate things.

What should be puzzling people is why so many folks are against the players being informed of the rules ... and who -- between experienced players and newer players, and between deliberate rule-breakers and accidental rule-breakers -- that anti-information stance helps.

3) It can be abused/ gotten wrong either way, as per my example.

Sure. It can be. Lots of things can go wrong. Players can choose to ignore the rules, even when informed. TOs can, too. Cheaters could try to disguise coaching as pointing out rules-breaking.

But right now the spectator gag-rule encourages rule-breaking and allows it to occur even in the best of circumstances. That's as things stand. Not hypothetical; it's what the rule does.

4) Most players aren't as knowledgeable as you/ other people on the forum. They are average players.

If they don't know the rules already, then they don't know the spectator gag-rule, so the spectator gag-rule won't stop them anyway.

The truth is, in practice, the vast majority of people are extraordinarily reluctant to disturb a game unless they are certain a rule has been broken (and, actually, usually not even then). That was true before the spectator gag-rule, and it wouldn't change after the spectator gag-rule.

5) Asking a TO about a rule might avoid interference all together.

Yes, it might. And if there's time to do this before a broken rule passes unremarked and warped the game's outcome, this is the thing to do.

But it shouldn't be the only recourse.

Players should want to know when they are breaking the rules. Players should want to win -- or lose -- based on a game played within the rules.

There's one reason -- only one reason -- for a player to be against being informed of a broken rule.

You are assuming, again, that the rule is actually broken and the interrupter is X-Wing Jesus. The more likely case is that someone interrupts and is wrong themselves and just wasted my time, in a timed game.

There are a lot of other things wrong with your response, but lets just settle with the easy to understand point above.

You are entitled to your opinion, but in this case it is clearly against the rules and for good reason.

Once at store championship I noticed some spectators whispering to each other. I'd been forgetting to roll a Dice at the start of combat for a crit I had. I wish they'd told me.

It's odd there's no clear ruling on this but if it was me and the room seemed friendly I'd just point out the rules violation to the players (if it looked like a mistake) in a friendly way. For what looked like actual cheating I'd get a judge.

No, I'm not "assuming" anything.

It is a fact that a spectator, out of potentially many, might know the rules well enough to see when the players are breaking one.

It is a fact that such a spectator might stop a game from being won or lost -- based on broken rules -- if permitted to say something. Not enforce something. Say something.

It is a fact that players should want to win or lose their game played by the rules. As detailed in Budgernaut's earlier example, the players who don't want that will, of course, object to having their rule-breaking pointed out.

It is a fact that the spectator gag-rule, as it exists now, favors experienced players over newer players.

It is a fact that the spectator gag-rule, as it exists now, favors deliberate rule-breakers over accidental rule-breakers.

These are all facts. Not assumptions.

There are questions, of course. Like, "What are the reasons for someone to be so adamantly in favor of the spectator gag-rule, given these facts?"

No, I'm not "assuming" anything.

It is a fact that a spectator, out of potentially many, might know the rules well enough to see when the players are breaking one.

It is a fact that such a spectator might stop a game from being won or lost -- based on broken rules -- if permitted to say something. Not enforce something. Say something.

It is a fact that players should want to win or lose their game played by the rules. As detailed in Budgernaut's earlier example, the players who don't want that will, of course, object to having their rule-breaking pointed out.

It is a fact that the spectator gag-rule, as it exists now, favors experienced players over newer players.

It is a fact that the spectator gag-rule, as it exists now, favors deliberate rule-breakers over accidental rule-breakers.

These are all facts. Not assumptions.

There are questions, of course. Like, "What are the reasons for someone to be so adamantly in favor of the spectator gag-rule, given these facts?"

Literally none of those are facts. Except maaaaaybe your first statement but you left it so open it could go either way.

LOL

Now I am the type of player who will point out missed triggers to my opponents. I did it at nationals FFS. But who is this clown watching our game to tell me how to play?