1 hour ago, fiesta0618 said:

Real-life law is not a good analogy for your argument, I think. For those cases where lawbreaking is severe enough to warrant extreme punishments, the judiciary is given broad latitude in sentencing based on circumstances and mitigating factors. Which is what the people opposing you here are mostly arguing for. In general, you only see "automatic" penalties for small crimes with small punishments, like parking tickets.

This is a very good point that goes back to my OP.

Worlds Judges and FFG employees have demonstrated how bad they are at assessing this situation. When I heard what the ruling of a Worlds Judge was, it was instantly apparent to me how exquisitely poor it was and easy to game. Well thought out, clear guidelines and rules with examples are needed.

I'd be more wary of players cheating if dials were on cards. Suddenly becomes much easier to subtley reach down and change your own dial mid-round.

2 minutes ago, PiebeatsCake said:

I'd be more wary of players cheating if dials were on cards. Suddenly becomes much easier to subtley reach down and change your own dial mid-round.

It wouldn't surprise me if that's actually the reason there's the rule saying dials need to be placed next to ships on the board.

5 minutes ago, VanderLegion said:

Or...be an honest player and don't cheat.

Or fix the rules such that cheating isn't easy to get away with and benefit from.

1 minute ago, Turbo Toker said:

Or fix the rules such that cheating isn't easy to get away with and benefit from.

Except you don't gain any benefit.

Or just place your dials outside reach of your opponent. If he cant reach them the problem is solved.

If he walks over to you side of the table, picks up the dial and then put is down again, I cant imagine any judge not stepping in.

Problem solved. Can you shut up now?

28 minutes ago, Turbo Toker said:

Or fix the rules such that cheating isn't easy to get away with and benefit from.

We're never going to agree on this. You want to give out auto-game losses for a mistake that will rarely change the course of the game. I (and most people here) am not okay with that.

2 hours ago, SabineKey said:

Yep. That's why an Intel Agent is useful because it can potentially look at one dial every single turn, with no cheating cost. And even then, it is used only for specific builds.

The Intel Agent comparison is a bit misleading. When you use Intel Agent, the opponent is aware you have it and can select moves accordingly.

2 hours ago, VanderLegion said:

Or...be an honest player and don't cheat.

That's a bit of wishful thinking IMO. As long as the risk vs. reward is high enough, there will be people who cheat, even if the reward itself is small. Just look at almost every online game for example: people cheat and bot because the risk is very low.

In general, I don't see the harm in wanting some coherent floor rules and penalty system for x-wing.

13 minutes ago, LordBlades said:

The Intel Agent comparison is a bit misleading. When you use Intel Agent, the opponent is aware you have it and can select moves accordingly.

That's a bit of wishful thinking IMO. As long as the risk vs. reward is high enough, there will be people who cheat, even if the reward itself is small. Just look at almost every online game for example: people cheat and bot because the risk is very low.

In general, I don't see the harm in wanting some coherent floor rules and penalty system for x-wing.

I get that. But turbo and I also disagree on whether the risk vs reward is worth it.

2 hours ago, LordBlades said:

The Intel Agent comparison is a bit misleading. When you use Intel Agent, the opponent is aware you have it and can select moves accordingly.

That's a bit of wishful thinking IMO. As long as the risk vs. reward is high enough, there will be people who cheat, even if the reward itself is small. Just look at almost every online game for example: people cheat and bot because the risk is very low.

In general, I don't see the harm in wanting some coherent floor rules and penalty system for x-wing.

True, but it ''tis the closest example in game play and still only has limited applicability.

As for risk vs. reward, I have outlined that comparison several times in this thread. The floor rule turbo suggests provides not enough reward for too much risk. Floor rules could be nice, but should be handled with more tact and discretion than what the OP purposes.

7 hours ago, SabineKey said:

True, but it ''tis the closest example in game play and still only has limited applicability.

As for risk vs. reward, I have outlined that comparison several times in this thread. The floor rule turbo suggests provides not enough reward for too much risk. Floor rules could be nice, but should be handled with more tact and discretion than what the OP purposes.

My suggestion is still better than the rulings of Worlds judges, FFG employees, and all other suggestions I've seen in this thread.

Too much risk of what? Someone getting punished for being negligent and looking at a dial that is not theirs?

One player falsely accusing another of doing it in order to secure an easy win? How is it possible to have any rules at all for this game then if that's your argument?

13 minutes ago, Turbo Toker said:

My suggestion is still better than the rulings of Worlds judges, FFG employees, and all other suggestions I've seen in this thread.

Says you and 1 other person. Everyone else in the thread disagrees.

2 hours ago, Turbo Toker said:

My suggestion is still better than the rulings of Worlds judges, FFG employees, and all other suggestions I've seen in this thread.

Too much risk of what? Someone getting punished for being negligent and looking at a dial that is not theirs?

One player falsely accusing another of doing it in order to secure an easy win? How is it possible to have any rules at all for this game then if that's your argument?

I don't know but we manage to get by.

There are so many ways of effectively cheating at X-Wing that are more impactful than sneaking a look at somebody's dial. The main defense against them happening is the honour system that everyone is pretty nice to each other, what goes around comes around, and really there's not a lot on the line so why bother cheating?

You're playing a game where your opponent will often remind you if you forget to do something. You think they're going to do that then sneak a look at your dial?

Bah why am I getting sucked into this? There's literally nobody in the world you will listen to because you know you know better than everybody else in the world. This thread should have closed about 10 pages ago but you lack the self-awareness to see that.

9 hours ago, Turbo Toker said:

My suggestion is still better than the rulings of Worlds judges, FFG employees, and all other suggestions I've seen in this thread.

Too much risk of what? Someone getting punished for being negligent and looking at a dial that is not theirs?

One player falsely accusing another of doing it in order to secure an easy win? How is it possible to have any rules at all for this game then if that's your argument?

That is merely your opinion, which has thus far failed to gain much support. I have detailed the risk several times. If you can't see the point after all this time, I'm not going to waste anymore of mine on the topic. You continue to consider apocalyptic extremes are the only way this ends without your suggestion. And yet, the game has survived for 5 years even with this risk. Unless you can find hard evidence that this problem is becoming wide spread, your suggestion continues to be unnecessary and not worth the cost.

9 hours ago, Turbo Toker said:

My suggestion is still better than the rulings of Worlds judges, FFG employees, and all other suggestions I've seen in this thread.

Huh. After reading all of the comments from this thread, I think most people would actually say it's the worst possible solution.

I've dropped in on this thread a few times and am not at all surprised to see it has gone pretty much no where. I think we'd all be better off stopping the comments and let this one slip away as it is apparent to me (and should be to everyone else) that the OP is stuck in a rut with his (flawed) assessment. You can lead them to the water, but you can't make them drink. Though you could drown them in it I suppose......

Most people who play this game don't want to be the kind of person that would insist on the penalty of a game loss for an accident. That is evident by the responses the OP is getting. And anyone who would willingly exploit looking at an opponent's dial under the guise of 'oops, my bad' is going to act the part fairly convincingly, I'd wager. Anyone like that is human garbage and they should be felt sorry for.

Since it is impossible to prove intent, the first one's gotta be free. Or free enough that the penalty isn't a 'see-ya-later'...

What about a strike system from the judge's standpoint? A mark on the scorecard of the accused that lets future opponents know they've been suspected of foul play previously? Have 3 'accidents' and you're out either way.

Anyway - I think the truth on this is clear. It is impossible to prove intent, and honest mistakes should not warrant an immediate loss in a game where grown a$$ men push little plastic spaceships around a mat so they can win more plastic stuff...

Can I get an amen?

2 minutes ago, macmastermind said:

Most people who play this game don't want to be the kind of person that would insist on the penalty of a game loss for an accident. That is evident by the responses the OP is getting. And anyone who would willingly exploit looking at an opponent's dial under the guise of 'oops, my bad' is going to act the part fairly convincingly, I'd wager. Anyone like that is human garbage and they should be felt sorry for.

Since it is impossible to prove intent, the first one's gotta be free. Or free enough that the penalty isn't a 'see-ya-later'...

What about a strike system from the judge's standpoint? A mark on the scorecard of the accused that lets future opponents know they've been suspected of foul play previously? Have 3 'accidents' and you're out either way.

Anyway - I think the truth on this is clear. It is impossible to prove intent, and honest mistakes should not warrant an immediate loss in a game where grown a$$ men push little plastic spaceships around a mat so they can win more plastic stuff...

Can I get an amen?

I think the fact that no one wants to be 'that guy' who insists on a penalty is all the more reason that the penalty should be codified. Then no one has to feel like he's being 'that guy', whether he's a judge or a player - the penalty just happens because it's in the (tournament) rules. This approach also avoids one player feeling that he's being treated unfairly if a judge penalizes him because the judge strongly suspects that the infraction was intentional, but another player gets by with the same infraction because a judge thought it was an accident.

2 minutes ago, Helias de Nappo said:

I think the fact that no one wants to be 'that guy' who insists on a penalty is all the more reason that the penalty should be codified.

You misunderstood me, I hope. Not even you or the OP think it would be fair to penalize someone with a game loss for making an honest mistake, if the intent was provable. If I've got that wrong, then we're at an impasse.

And because intent is not provable, you have to let the first one go.

The secondary consideration is that there should be limits to how far the company/players/rules will go to root out human garbage players. The stakes aren't high enough for this to be as much of a concern as it seems to be with you guys.

Frankly, if I'm paired up with anyone who takes this game to the limits you and the OP are taking it, I'm happy to go ahead and scoop anyway. Scrolling through facebook for 75 minutes would be more fun...

3 hours ago, macmastermind said:

You misunderstood me, I hope. Not even you or the OP think it would be fair to penalize someone with a game loss for making an honest mistake, if the intent was provable. If I've got that wrong, then we're at an impasse.

And because intent is not provable, you have to let the first one go.

The secondary consideration is that there should be limits to how far the company/players/rules will go to root out human garbage players. The stakes aren't high enough for this to be as much of a concern as it seems to be with you guys.

Frankly, if I'm paired up with anyone who takes this game to the limits you and the OP are taking it, I'm happy to go ahead and scoop anyway. Scrolling through facebook for 75 minutes would be more fun...

First, I'm not insisting that the penalty must be a game loss. The OP and I have both been open to other, lesser penalties, provided that they can't be exploited. In other words, the penalty can't be so trivial that looking at the opponent's dial is worth taking the penalty. So far there have a been a couple of good suggestions as to what those penalties could be.

Second, my position (and I think the OP's as well) is that intent doesn't matter. I disagree that the impossibility of proving intent means that you have to let the first one go. Regardless of intent, the game state has been irreversibly damaged because it's not possible to unsee the hidden information (and hidden information is a key element of the game). Good players aren't just thinking about the current turn either, but several turns ahead (at least, that's what I hear, not being one of them). Therefore the penalty should occur automatically, just as it would in some other sport where one player fouls another, or some other game where one player commits an infraction. Like, if you reneged in a game of Euchre and then said that it was an accident - well, maybe it was, but it doesn't matter. You receive the penalty.

3 minutes ago, Helias de Nappo said:

First, I'm not insisting that the penalty must be a game loss. The OP and I have both been open to other, lesser penalties, provided that they can't be exploited. In other words, the penalty can't be so trivial that looking at the opponent's dial is worth taking the penalty. So far there have a been a couple of good suggestions as to what those penalties could be.

Second, my position (and I think the OP's as well) is that intent doesn't matter. I disagree that the impossibility of proving intent means that you have to let the first one go. Regardless of intent, the game state has been irreversibly damaged because it's not possible to unsee the hidden information (and hidden information is a key element of the game). Good players aren't just thinking about the current turn either, but several turns ahead (at least, that's what I hear, not being one of them). Therefore the penalty should occur automatically, just as it would in some other sport where one player fouls another, or some other game where one player commits an infraction. Like, if you reneged in a game of Euchre and then said that it was an accident - well, maybe it was, but it doesn't matter. You receive the penalty.

And in none of those games is the penalty an automatic game loss. It usually doesn't even result in the player being ejected from the game (at least the first time).

you say you and turbo are both open to lesser penalties, but so far incthe thread I haven't seen either of you even consider anything BUT a game loss to my recollection

There was a Star Trek episode about this once. That planet where breaking any law meant death. Kill someone, death. Step on a flower, death.

Sure, we all wanted to see Wesley executed, but come on! There's been a TV show written about why this way of thinking is bad! Let the punishment fit the crime, and freaking fly casual.

And with any luck, you'll win some plastic stuff...

3 hours ago, macmastermind said:

You misunderstood me, I hope. Not even you or the OP think it would be fair to penalize someone with a game loss for making an honest mistake, if the intent was provable. If I've got that wrong, then we're at an impasse.

And because intent is not provable, you have to let the first one go.

The secondary consideration is that there should be limits to how far the company/players/rules will go to root out human garbage players. The stakes aren't high enough for this to be as much of a concern as it seems to be with you guys.

Frankly, if I'm paired up with anyone who takes this game to the limits you and the OP are taking it, I'm happy to go ahead and scoop anyway. Scrolling through facebook for 75 minutes would be more fun...

Intent doesn't matter. You've done it intentionally, or you were negligent and weren't careful enough. Either way, hidden information has been improperly revealed, it cannot be undone.

If you let the first one go, then that means you can get away with it once.

Doing it intentionally because you know you can get away with it the first time does not make you a human garbage player. There are rules that were broken, and you took your "punishment". You simply weighed the benefits and the costs and determined it was worth the punishment.

Go ahead, scoop. If I'm already "human garbage", I'd be just the kind of person that would love a free win.

Imagine a Star Trek planet where the first time you killed someone, you only got a warning. It would be called death planet.

I don't know if it has been mentioned yet, I'd rather not go through double digit pages of this.... but what if you took a piece of sticky paper or tape, fastened it to the bottom of your dial and wrote your name on it? Simple, and really hard to miss. Just a thought

Yes, because MURDER is completely the same thing as seeing someone's dial in X-Wing...

and even murder has different consequences depending on the situation. For instance, the *intent* makes a difference.