9 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

You're basically calling into the incredibly narrow scenario where the entire x-wing community got to watch someone cheat live, on camera, and therefore witness the intent. Outside of that, other than someone's word , either the accused, or the accuser, how do you police intent?

I mean that literally - walk us through it, lawyer.

I just ... ugh. People make very good determinations of intent every day . I mean literally every day, people accurately judge intent. (If someone runs their key down the entire length of your car, do you really need to see them do it, or have them confess, to determine intent?)

This comes down to one simple fact -- rule-breaking with intent is cheating -- and one simple corollary -- cheating should be punished more harshly than accidental rule-breaking.

If you disagree with either of those, state so, and be very clear about it.

Otherwise quit saying that intent doesn't matter, because saying that is just dumb. If intent can be determined -- and, again, it doesn't take a confession or mind-reading, at least for people of at least average intelligence -- then it should be factored in to any penalty. Because "cheating" is worse than "accidental rule-breaking."

Quote

You want harsher penalty because you believe he intended to cheat, and we simply want harsher penalties because he demonstrably cheated, REGARDLESS of the fact of whether he meant to or not, because "dems de rulz," as us plebs without a thesaurus are wont to say.

Jesus. Christ.

You cannot cheat without intent to break rules. Breaking rules without intending to break rules is a mistake; it's accidental or it's from genuine ignorance. People should be encouraged to know the rules, so accidental rule-breaking should usually carry some penalty, but people should be discouraged from cheating, so intentional rule-breaking should carry a harsher penalty.

If you disagree with that, just say so, and everybody reading this can just laugh at you and move on.

If you agree with it, then you are agreeing with the fact that intent matters . So stop saying it doesn't.

1 minute ago, Jeff Wilder said:

I just ... ugh. People make very good determinations of intent every day . I mean literally every day, people accurately judge intent. (If someone runs their key down the entire length of your car, do you really need to see them do it, or have them confess, to determine intent?)

This comes down to one simple fact -- rule-breaking with intent is cheating -- and one simple corollary -- cheating should be punished more harshly than accidental rule-breaking.

If you disagree with either of those, state so, and be very clear about it.

Otherwise quit saying that intent doesn't matter, because saying that is just dumb. If intent can be determined -- and, again, it doesn't take a confession or mind-reading, at least for people of at least average intelligence -- then it should be factored in to any penalty. Because "cheating" is worse than "accidental rule-breaking."

Oh, I don't disagree that people can determine intent. I bet if we're playing, and I jack your dial, look at it, put it back down, and laugh at you, you can judge I'm being a mega-**** cheater.

Now walk me through how you PROVE IT at a tournament to a judge, who did not witness it, and does not have video footage.

Do you take the accuser's word for it? Maybe one other person saw it? Is that person the accuser's friend?

3 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Jesus. Christ.

You cannot cheat without intent to break rules. Breaking rules without intending to break rules is a mistake; it's accidental or it's from genuine ignorance. People should be encouraged to know the rules, so accidental rule-breaking should usually carry some penalty, but people should be discouraged from cheating, so intentional rule-breaking should carry a harsher penalty.

If you disagree with that, just say so, and everybody reading this can just laugh at you and move on.

If you agree with it, then you are agreeing with the fact that intent matters . So stop saying it doesn't.

My god you're a ******. Are you only capable of ad hominems?

No one is saying that intent doesn't matter for morality, broadly - we're saying it's **** near possible to prove and police except in incredibly narrow situations of monumental proof.

Your lovely philosophical diatribe on a human's ability to detect intent is entirely disconnected from the actual point of all this - how do you write rules that are enforceable, and if you want add intent to those rules, how does a neutral observer, who usually would have limited evidence, other than the broken gamestate (which doesn't exactly leave a lot to detect intent), actually decide that intent? Or are you just wanting some extra rules for the very few times you can demonstrably prove intent in action?

Until you actually come up with real, tangible suggestions, that can easily be enforces in an actual tournament when you DON'T have video evidence, I'll leave you to opine vociferously into the void of the internet.

4 hours ago, Tlfj200 said:

Further, for rules for a game , intent absolutely isn't meaningful in almost any situation. Whether I am breaking the rules or cheating on purpose, or by accident, isn't particularly relevant to the fact I'm breaking the rules and causing harm to others in the game. That's why they are rules.

Intent absolutely matters. It can, and should, be the difference between a light punishment and expulsion.

Sometimes you accidentally broke a rule or fouled, sometimes you **** well did exactly what you meant to and get sent off.

Just now, kris40k said:

Intent absolutely matters. It can, and should, be the difference between a light punishment and expulsion.

Sometimes you accidentally broke a rule or fouled, sometimes you **** well did exactly what you meant to and get sent off.

Sweet, and you let me know how you enforce that without that video tape or the judge directly witnessing it (because that's how almost all x-wing games occur - limited witnesses and no tape).

And... go!

1 minute ago, Tlfj200 said:

Now walk me through how you PROVE IT at a tournament to a judge, who did not witness it, and does not have video footage.

Do you take the accuser's word for it? Maybe one other person saw it? Is that person the accuser's friend?

That's why they're judges . They get the story, and they make the judgment. If intent can't be determined, then it can't be determined. That's absolutely fine.

It's not the same thing as saying that "floor rules should have absolutely nothing to do with intent," because that's complete garbage.

Quote

My god you're a ******. Are you only capable of ad hominems?

Right back at you. At the very least, I know what ad hominem actually means.

Quote

No one is saying that intent doesn't matter for morality, broadly - we're saying it's **** near possible to prove and police except in incredibly narrow situations of monumental proof.

Which is just a stupid thing to say.

Quote

Or are you just wanting some extra rules for the very few times you can demonstrably prove intent in action?

Okay, let's start slow. Let's just take the above, and say, "Sure."

Does intent matter "for the very few times" it can be proven?

5 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

Sweet, and you let me know how you enforce that without that video tape or the judge directly witnessing it (because that's how almost all x-wing games occur - limited witnesses and no tape).

And... go!

TO's decision. People have been playing sports and games since before the invention of the video camera.

It doesn't take rocket appliances to figure out.

1 minute ago, Jeff Wilder said:

That's why they're judges . They get the story, and they make the judgment. If intent can't be determined, then it can't be determined. That's absolutely fine.

It's not the same thing as saying that "floor rules should have absolutely nothing to do with intent," because that's complete garbage.

Right back at you. At the very least, I know what ad hominem actually means.

Which is just a stupid thing to say.

Okay, let's start slow. Let's just take the above, and say, "Sure."

Does intent matter "for the very few times" it can be proven?

Wow... you actually think everyone that disagrees with you is dumb, eh?

You do you, Jeff. You do you.

1 minute ago, kris40k said:

TO's decision. People have been playing sports and games since before the invention of the video camera.

It's not rocket appliances.

Man, I really don't think you want the typical TO making these kinds of inferential decisions. And I know TOs don't.

And yeah, before cameras, we had this too; but many sports have multiple refs, or at least a dedicated ref that clearly watches the main action most of the time. That's why sports analogies typically break down for board games - because we lack the dedicated judge presence.

So, it feels really odd to want a TO to go further down the rabbit hole of a "he said, she said" scenario in a boardgame tournament than they already mostly have to (hopefully the two players already agree on what happened, and simply want a ruling on what happens, rather than arguing what happened itself).

But honestly, TOs already possess the power - they already can DQ someone from their tournament if they feel that person is intentionally cheating. So if you want to push your local TO to do so, you could.

Getting into an argument with Jeff is useless, Travis. He's basically a poster boy for why the forums are a cesspool.

For the record, I back everything Travis says in this thread. Floor rules should not have any judge trying to determine intent. Coming from a CCG background, the lack of X-Wing floor rules has been infuriating.

12 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Okay, let's start slow. Let's just take the above, and say, "Sure."

Does intent matter "for the very few times" it can be proven?

I'm sorry, I missed your answer to this. You quoted it and everything, so I'm sure it was an oversight.

4 minutes ago, pheaver said:

For the record, I back everything Travis says in this thread.

Yeah, that's shocking. I mean, from everything but an ethical standpoint, I guess.

Jeff, it's my understanding that you are an attorney by training. Despite your extensive education and years of practice, you seem unable to have a conversation about "intent" without devolving into personal attacks an implications as to the ethical qualifications of others.

Assuming you are as intelligent as you represent yourself to be, what chance does a normal TO have in deciphering an intent rule when you yourself are unable to explain the concept to experienced and practiced players?

Travis asked for you to walk him through the process for determining intentional conduct. You could have educated the community with a discussion about intentional torts. Instead, you berated him for his use of latin.

15 hours ago, Cubanboy said:

Too much Glitterstem..........

Was that typo intentional?

Yay. Sock-puppets.

5 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Yay. Sock-puppets.

I think that one was actually someone who you all actually inspired to make a forum account.

Impressive!

Just now, Brunas said:

I think that one was actually someone who you all actually inspired to make a forum account.

Who just happened to know "Travis," and to be aware that I'm lawyer.

Yay. Sock-puppets.

Yea, basically Jeff is probably one of the worst people to try and have a serious conversation with on these forums. He refuses to have discourse and instead relies on personal attacks and SAT words to "win".

For the record, intent matters in certain terms. Zidane's (awesome) headbutt was used above, so lets use a footie analogy. Handballs, where intent is EXACTLY the difference between a foul and not a foul. This comes down to a judgement call by the ref, just like what we are discussing.

All that said, in a game like this the floor rules should be written and then leeway given to TOs on intent.

Jeff.. buddy... pal. You should know I'm not a sock puppet. But this thread is literally more asinine than threads I create.

Congrats you've surpassed the Illuminati thread. Do you want a cookie? Because you win one. Was that your intent? does it matter?

I'm a sock puppet!

Just now, Rytackle said:

I'm a sock puppet!

Probably would have been better if thats where your dad put you so long ago.

1 hour ago, kris40k said:

Intent absolutely matters. It can, and should, be the difference between a light punishment and expulsion.

Sometimes you accidentally broke a rule or fouled, sometimes you **** well did exactly what you meant to and get sent off.

Zidane did what needed to be done.

18 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Who just happened to know "Travis," and to be aware that I'm lawyer.

Yay. Sock-puppets.

Jeff, all I had to do was google your name and "x-wing." The first redirected to a team covenant site re a CA regional. From there, the trail was easy to follow.

In any event, your vitriol inspired me to write my second forum post because you were belittling people for the purpose of belittling them. You published a post regarding the concept of "intent." You solicited comments on this concept. When the comments dared to ask follow up inquiries, you decided to launch personal attacks instead of engage in discussion.

Your use of legalese in this casual setting is not only odd, but speaks volumes to perceived intellectual elitism. Ironically, there is nothing intellectually elite about an attorney who is unable to provide a lay explanation of the elements of an intent analysis.

6 minutes ago, speaker said:

Your casual use of legalese in this casual setting is not only odd, but speaks volumes to perceived intellectual elitism. Ironically, there is nothing intellectually elite about an attorney who is unable to provide a lay explanation of the elements of an intent analysis.

dont know what this means, but dank.

Haha I love the cancer chat plebs coming to each others aid. I'm listening to krayts cast hearing them ask why the forums are so toxic and reading Travis call someone a ******* idiot simultaneously like ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

44 minutes ago, haslo said:

Was that typo intentional?

Maybe ...........

"Legalese." The use of the word "intent" is "legalese." Jesus Christ. (Yay. Sock-puppets.)