Any rule that allows people to actively try and cheat is a bad rule and needs changing

Allowing spectators to interject into the game could and likely would lead to people trying to trick someone into losing, so you didn't have to face them in the next round.

The rule as it exists however does not allow people to cheat, because if you see someone cheating you can inform the Judge and they can deal with it.

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

Sure. But not from the point of view of people who would quite happily take advantage of the bad rule.

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

Sure. But not from the point of view of people who would quite happily take advantage of the bad rule.

So now you are saying anyone who disagrees with you is a cheater?

Nope... I have worked in the industry for 15 odd years. I have run plenty of tournaments, and I know just how much of a mess a concerned spectator can make if you just allow them to intercede whenever they want. I've seen fallout that has lasted weeks with incrimination flying back and forth... It much safer and causes far less issues if the tournament organiser deals with it.

I know exactly why they have ruled it the way they have, and I totally agree with it. FFG have how many games and run how many big tournaments for them each year, yes they make mistakes but in general they know what they are doing.

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.

I see what you mean, but then someone can also tell me that I am not allowed to go to the judge because it is not my business. Why it is allowed/my business to go to the judge but on the other hand not my business when interacting directly?

Sorry but I would really be upset when a spectator stand still when he sees a violation of rule. It is not a quiz game show where you ruin the game when you interfere and shout the right answer. It is the opposite, you guarantee a right play by interacting when a big rule violation was done.

Maybe I am also not allowed to answer when one of the players is asking me how much time is left approximately. I should probably call the judge to come over and tell him the time.

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

Sure. But not from the point of view of people who would quite happily take advantage of the bad rule.

So now you are saying anyone who disagrees with you is a cheater?

Nope... I have worked in the industry for 15 odd years. I have run plenty of tournaments, and I know just how much of a mess a concerned spectator can make if you just allow them to intercede whenever they want. I've seen fallout that has lasted weeks with incrimination flying back and forth... It much safer and causes far less issues if the tournament organiser deals with it.

Could the TO just deal with that interjecting person?

Any rule that allows people to actively try and cheat is a bad rule and needs changing

Allowing spectators to interject into the game could and likely would lead to people trying to trick someone into losing, so you didn't have to face them in the next round.

The rule as it exists however does not allow people to cheat, because if you see someone cheating you can inform the Judge and they can deal with it.

I am so glad i dont play in these messed up locations that you play in.... giant conspiracy huge mistrust of all other players its insane.

Generally speaking i have seen almost no "cheaters" i have seen tons of forgot how an interaction works or just flat out understood it wrong and it takes 2 seconds for someone who notices to point it out usually met with "ah **** you are right" followed with a huge "I am really sorry" to their opponent.

I think all of you are hung up on cheaters.... it's not about cheaters it's about simple mistakes that are noticed and should be corrected. The fact you think that if someone can notice a mistake and mention it means that they will then use that ability to cheat the game is crazy (and i am so glad i don't play in whatever distrustful and deceitful locations you play in). Last month i noticed my TO doing something wrong as of the new FAQ... what the **** should i have done? well i said something he checked the FAQ apologized to everyone and his opponents and was grateful the mistake was caught then.

If you refrained from telling me i was making mistakes with the rules then you are the one who is cheating the game imo.

Could the TO just deal with that interjecting person?

Yes, he can but he can't stop arguments going back or forth if the interjection had knock on effects, eg an argument that meant the game didn't end and one player won on MOV, or it changed what one player would do by making him see something he wouldn't otherwise. etc...

Why it is allowed/my business to go to the judge but on the other hand not my business when interacting directly?

Because you're not the one making the decision if the game needs to be interrupted or some action needs to be taken. If you can't see the difference between letting the Judge do his/her job and interjecting your opinion into it.. I'm just not sure how else I can explain it.

it's not about cheaters it's about simple mistakes that are noticed and should be corrected.

It doesn't matter what you think it's about. What really matters is what the rules actually say.

Last month i noticed my TO doing something wrong as of the new FAQ... what the **** should i have done?

You should've informed the TO about the mistake and pointed out what the new FAQ says... I'm really not sure how this can honestly be a question or even related to what we're discussing.

If you refrained from telling me i was making mistakes with the rules then you are the one who is cheating the game imo.

Well your opinion is directly contrary to what the rules actually say...

Interesting topic. I have never been to a x wing tournament but I have played tournaments for other games for almost 20 years. While a case can be made for we'll intentioned interruptions of the game, I believe leaving it be is better.

It's distracting and frankly annoying to have Passer bys or spectators stop your game with commentary about the game. I can see outright cheating being a corner case, butoverall weighing the pros and cons having an expectation of no interference is the lesser of two evils, IMO.

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

Sure. But not from the point of view of people who would quite happily take advantage of the bad rule.

So now you are saying anyone who disagrees with you is a cheater?

Nope... I have worked in the industry for 15 odd years. I have run plenty of tournaments, and I know just how much of a mess a concerned spectator can make if you just allow them to intercede whenever they want. I've seen fallout that has lasted weeks with incrimination flying back and forth... It much safer and causes far less issues if the tournament organiser deals with it.

Could the TO just deal with that interjecting person?

Any rule that allows people to actively try and cheat is a bad rule and needs changing

Allowing spectators to interject into the game could and likely would lead to people trying to trick someone into losing, so you didn't have to face them in the next round.

The rule as it exists however does not allow people to cheat, because if you see someone cheating you can inform the Judge and they can deal with it.

I am so glad i dont play in these messed up locations that you play in.... giant conspiracy huge mistrust of all other players its insane.

Generally speaking i have seen almost no "cheaters" i have seen tons of forgot how an interaction works or just flat out understood it wrong and it takes 2 seconds for someone who notices to point it out usually met with "ah **** you are right" followed with a huge "I am really sorry" to their opponent.

I think all of you are hung up on cheaters.... it's not about cheaters it's about simple mistakes that are noticed and should be corrected. The fact you think that if someone can notice a mistake and mention it means that they will then use that ability to cheat the game is crazy (and i am so glad i don't play in whatever distrustful and deceitful locations you play in). Last month i noticed my TO doing something wrong as of the new FAQ... what the **** should i have done? well i said something he checked the FAQ apologized to everyone and his opponents and was grateful the mistake was caught then.

If you refrained from telling me i was making mistakes with the rules then you are the one who is cheating the game imo.

If your TO was a player, then it probably wasn't a very high-level tournament. At smaller tournaments where all the players know each other, I think what you described is fine (sounds like relaxed tier, to me). But when you are dealing with strangers and you don't know their background and they don't know yours, it's better to follow the chain of command, so to speak, and notify a judge, marshal, or TO, rather than directly address the issue yourself.

Correct me as soon as you notice.

That's fine for you, but you don't get to force everyone else to abide by your opinion on the matter. And again there are the actual rules that says you can't do it.

This rule relies on players knowing/understanding the rules as written or as intended. I don't want spectators giving hints at what could be done, I am playing one person, not a committee. But if rules are being broken then stop the incorrect play. This current system is open to abuse it's crazy. What if a person whose desire to win is so great they bend the rules against a new player who has no idea? If "you" we're breaking the rules I would point it out, if you didn't like it I would be more than happy to discuss it post game. My main question would be, why are you so upset that I pointed out rules violations? If it's to gain unfair advantage then screw "you" bro, git gud and play properly.

It's distracting and frankly annoying to have Passer bys or spectators stop your game with commentary about the game.

I'm sure in some venues and especially at league or casual game nights, people don't mind it if someone makes a comment. In other places they may. So if you don't know then the wise thing is to stay quiet... Better to be thought a fool then to open your mouth and remove all doubt as it were.

Again the real problem is that any given spectator may or may not actually even understand the rules and yet feel they have not only the right but the duty to interrupt someone else's game but are actually making it worse with wrong information or misunderstandings of the rules. The judge on the other hand better know the rules, and needs to be consistent in their judgements. That way everyone is playing the same way.

And to make this very clear... What we're talking about are things like Store Championships or Regionals... Not a friendly league night.

This current system is open to abuse it's crazy.

How so? If you see something being done wrong go inform the TO/Judge so they can fix it. How exactly is this open for abuse?

What if a person whose desire to win is so great they bend the rules against a new player who has no idea?

Go inform the TO/Judge

why are you so upset that I pointed out rules violations?

Because it's not up to you to do that, if I don't know you how do I know you even know the rules? Why should I listen to you rather than the Judge whose job it is, is to know and enforce the rules?

How exactly do people not get that it's up to the TO to enforce the rules and not them?

Edit; and as someone who spends a fair amount of time answering questions on the Rules forms, I can say that the average person really does not have a strong enough grasp of the rules to interject because odds are fairly good that they don't actually understand the rule in the first place.

This current system is open to abuse it's crazy.

How so? If you see something being done wrong go inform the TO/Judge so they can fix it. How exactly is this open for abuse?

What if a person whose desire to win is so great they bend the rules against a new player who has no idea?

Go inform the TO/Judge

why are you so upset that I pointed out rules violations?

Because it's not up to you to do that, if I don't know you how do I know you even know the rules? Why should I listen to you rather than the Judge whose job it is, is to know and enforce the rules?

How exactly do people not get that it's up to the TO to enforce the rules and not them?

Edit; and as someone who spends a fair amount of time answering questions on the Rules forms, I can say that the average person really does not have a strong enough grasp of the rules to interject because odds are fairly good that they don't actually understand the rule in the first place.

Would you pause your game in a 120 person tournament to wait for a TO to have come to clarify a possible rules violation. It is quite arrogant to think that no one knows the rules as good as you. People read and people keep up to date with the FAQ, but not everyone of course.

Would you pause your game in a 120 person tournament to wait for a TO to have come to clarify a possible rules violation.

If it needed to be answered for the game to progress, then yes I would. I mean that is sort of the whole point of having Judges at tournaments.

It is quite arrogant to think that no one knows the rules as good as you.

There are a lot of people you know the rules as well if not better than me. But there's also a lot of people who don't, or hardly know the rules at all. I have no reason to assume some random stranger actually knows the rules as well as I do, and definitely no reason to assume they know them better then a Judge.

People read and people keep up to date with the FAQ, but not everyone of course.

The one person you can count on to have done so is the Judge, so it is only logical to let the one person you know actually knows the rules to be the one who makes judgements on rule disputes.

Also a spectator may or may not even be aware of what's going on. Yet some people think they should but in anyway...

Why should people stop playing to get into a discussion with some random person about a rule, when that person may not even understand the rule or isn't applying it correctly for the given situation? Should I lose out on a chance of winning because some guy wanted to argue with me for 15 minutes about a rule they don't even understand in the first place?

This current system is open to abuse it's crazy.

How so? If you see something being done wrong go inform the TO/Judge so they can fix it. How exactly is this open for abuse?

What if a person whose desire to win is so great they bend the rules against a new player who has no idea?

Go inform the TO/Judge

why are you so upset that I pointed out rules violations?

Because it's not up to you to do that, if I don't know you how do I know you even know the rules? Why should I listen to you rather than the Judge whose job it is, is to know and enforce the rules?

How exactly do people not get that it's up to the TO to enforce the rules and not them?

Edit; and as someone who spends a fair amount of time answering questions on the Rules forms, I can say that the average person really does not have a strong enough grasp of the rules to interject because odds are fairly good that they don't actually understand the rule in the first place.

Would you pause your game in a 120 person tournament to wait for a TO to have come to clarify a possible rules violation. It is quite arrogant to think that no one knows the rules as good as you. People read and people keep up to date with the FAQ, but not everyone of course.

Yes absolutely. If you are in a tournament and you require a TO, you stop, call out for the TO or raise your hand for the TO and wait until they show up. If you spot something wrong you let the TO know. Under no circumstances do you interrupt the game in progress that is absolutely no business of yours regardless of what infraction you see. As I said in my first post in this thread(post # 3) Alex Davy(I'm sure you all know who he is - Xwing game designer) saw a player on the stream he was commentating on perform an illegal attack out the back arc of a vcx after it had deployed the phantom. He did nothing and they didn't even go inform a judge.

What some of you fail to understand is that if spectators were allowed to interfere, this could actually be used to cheat to throw off the concentration of the player(s).

I'll give you an example. I was playing at a nationals recently and my son(who also plays - we both made the top cut at nationals) saw my opponent did something against the rules while I wasn't looking. He quietly went over to the TO/judge and informed him of it. The TO then came over and watched the game for a bit to see what had happened and if it would happen again. My son did not interfere in the game and he did know me. He did the right thing. Did my opponent cheat or was it an accident? I don't know and I'll never know. Only he knows. Regardless, I'm glad my son didn't interrupt the game and went to the judge to inform him.

Edit to add that the game this happened on was my Top 8 game and I lost it.

I just want to point out that certain people are very clearly (and probably deliberately) conflating enforcement of the rules -- which is the responsibility of both players and TO -- with informing of the rules -- which should be the responsibility of all players, spectators or not.

So the people who are in favor of people being informed of the rules are saying, "We think there should be nothing wrong with informing people of the rules."

And the people who are perfectly okay with watching rule-breaking happen and saying nothing about it are saying, "You don't -- and shouldn't -- have the right to enforce the rules."

See that nifty intellectually dishonest switch? One group is talking about "information," and the other group pretends the first group is advocating "enforcement."

When, actually, once informed of the proper rules, the players themselves (and the TO, of course) are then responsible for enforcement.

Why are some people so adamant against players being informed when they are seen breaking rules? That's a really good question. .

@ VanorDM:

The discussion is turning around in circles.

Ok let us do the following:

I will interfere when I see someone doing a mistake, and you will not. Because both of us think he is doing the right thing. And everyone is happy. You will not convince me to do otherwise, nor will I succeed to convice you.

I am out for today. Good evening everyone

ER.. nope we are not.. We are saying quite explicitly that you should not IN ANY WAY interfere with a game being played. informing a player of rules is interfering. If you believe someone is cheating talk to a Marshal or TO

I just want to point out that certain people are very clearly (and probably deliberately) conflating enforcement of the rules -- which is the responsibility of both players and TO -- with informing of the rules -- which should be the responsibility of all players, spectators or not.

So the people who are in favor of people being informed of the rules are saying, "We think there should be nothing wrong with informing people of the rules."

And the people who are perfectly okay with watching rule-breaking happen and saying nothing about it are saying, "You don't -- and shouldn't -- have the right to enforce the rules."

See that nifty intellectually dishonest switch? One group is talking about "information," and the other group pretends the first group is advocating "enforcement."

When, actually, once informed of the proper rules, the players themselves (and the TO, of course) are then responsible for enforcement.

Why are some people so adamant against players being informed when they are seen breaking rules? That's a really good question. .

Look, I'll give you my personal experience which colors my whole view of this topic.

I was at a Store Championship for Star Wars: The Card Game. I had been out of the game for a little bit, so I wasn't completely familiar with all of the new cards, but I wanted to try my best. I had a bye for one of the rounds and decided to watch others' games, which I already felt uneasy about because I didn't want people to think I was trying to scout; I was just excited to watch some SWLCG since the LCG is what I came to the tournament for. I looked over a guy's shoulder and read the board sate. I saw some new units I hadn't seen before, so I read their text. The unit had to be sacrificed if the Force was ever with the Light Side. He sat for a minute, decided not to commit to the Force and passed the turn. The Force should have flipped to the Light Side, but neither player had counted the Force icons correctly. I asked, "Who has the Force?" They recounted and the Dark Side player flipped the Force token over. He still didn't sacrifice the units. So I asked, "Do those units ... ?" He got really huffy as he sacrificed his units that he had just played that turn. Then he said, "Please, just ... go away!" I explained I was just trying to help them maintain a legal board state and that I would have corrected the Light Side player if I saw something. He responded with, "Yes, I know, but please ... just don't."

It was very awkward after that. I could tell I had completely thrown him off his game and that little interaction actually threw me off the rest of my game as well (though I did make top 4). It was a really sticky situation. On the one hand, I wasn't confident that there wasn't something on the board that I was missing, so instead of telling them they were wrong, I just asked clarifying questions. I wasn't sure whether to get a TO because maybe I just didn't understand the board state. But the bigger part of me feels that going to the TO was the right call because then there is a (supposedly) impartial person there to address the rules dispute. You see, the Light Side player was one of the store employees and it was my local store. This immediately put the Dark Side player in the position of feeling ganged-up on. Maybe I was trying to give my buddy the upper hand. It's easy to see how that would sour his day. And in the end, intervening was just as emotionally disruptive to me. I firmly believe getting a judge, marshal, or organizer is the best option if you see a rules violation, and my opinion is supported by the current tournament documents.

So ... the point of that story is that a player was breaking the rules to his benefit and he didn't like being informed that he was breaking the rules to his benefit?

... And somehow you think what you did was wrong?

That story is exactly my point: the rule against watching people break rules and saying something benefits nobody except people who would prefer to break rules without being caught.

Exactly like the guy in your story.

The world is just ****** upside-down. Jesus.

So ... the point of that story is that a player was breaking the rules to his benefit and he didn't like being informed that he was breaking the rules to his benefit?

... And somehow you think what you did was wrong?

That story is exactly my point: the rule against watching people break rules and saying something benefits nobody except people who would prefer to break rules without being caught.

Exactly like the guy in your story.

The world is just ****** upside-down. Jesus.

Yes, I know it looks like that from the outside, but you're missing all the emotional baggage that goes along with it. I could have had the same result (the player making mistakes getting told he's wrong) without myself looking like the bad guy and with an impartial party to enforce the rules. See, as a fellow player, I may have a vested interest in one player winning over the other. That Dark Side player was tense and I don't think he meant wrong, but I know he was way more experienced than the Light Side player. So another outside party could look at my actions and think that my interference was intended to make sure that the better player didn't advance so that I would have an easier opponent later on. Can you not see that there is a conflict of interest when players correct other players? If I had continued to sit there watching the game, who could have ensured that I really would have corrected both players? Who is to say that I wouldn't have favored one player over another and pointed out mistakes by one and not mistakes by the other? You can't know that, so it's better to get the judges involved than to get on your high-moral horse and parade around in the name of game justice. Procedures are in place to protect all parties.

So ... the point of that story is that a player was breaking the rules to his benefit and he didn't like being informed that he was breaking the rules to his benefit?

... And somehow you think what you did was wrong?

That story is exactly my point: the rule against watching people break rules and saying something benefits nobody except people who would prefer to break rules without being caught.

Exactly like the guy in your story.

The world is just ****** upside-down. Jesus.

You are the one so invested in seeing one as allowing cheating, that you fail to see the other manipulations that the other can allow. It is a clear, distinct line. If you allow spectators to act as active judges (which is calling out rules issues in active games), it is opens up that thin line to coaching a player.

It opens up no line to coaching players. There is a clear difference between "you must take the stress because you shot at Rebel Captive" and "you probably don't want to take stress, so I wouldn't shoot at Rebel Captive." The line is clear, and it's disingenuous to claim otherwise.

Players should want to play by the rules. Players should want to be informed if they are not playing by the rules.

There is exactly one -- and only one -- reason for a player to not want to be informed if he is breaking the rules.

The current spectator rule actively encourages and facilitates rule-breaking. It literally forbids action that would lessen rule-breaking. It does that now and unambiguously.

The argument in favor of the rule is, "Changing it might lead to abuse." It's a ridiculous argument, and the funniest thing is that it's a ridiculous argument even if it turned out to be true. (Which, of course, it would not.)

The current spectator rule actively encourages and facilitates rule-breaking. It literally forbids action that would lessen rule-breaking. It does that now and unambiguously.

No it doesn't... at all... It just sets how those actions that stop rule breaking should be dealt with... IE you deal with the TO, not directly with the players who are trying to concentrate on the game.

No it doesn't... at all... It just sets how those actions that stop rule breaking should be dealt with... IE you deal with the TO, not directly with the players who are trying to concentrate on the game.

Which is fine, and exactly what I will do if the TO is going to be able to respond in time to see and correct the rule-breaking.

Many times -- most of the time, at some tournaments -- the TO will not be able to respond quickly enough.

Which means the rule-breaker gets away with it at least once.

And we're back to the current rule encouraging and facilitating breaking the rules.