3 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Am I? How so?

I personally don't think there are more than a handful of WAAC players in existence. (The late, unlamented, ParagoombaSlayer was the only one I've ever encountered.)

But there's a vast area between "I'd let a player correct a clear catastrophic mistake on the first turn" and "I'd throw a player under the bus to win." And the people arguing against the former are clearly closer to the latter.

But the OC's opponent wasn't thrown under a bus. A mistake was made and he had to live with it.

1 minute ago, Jeff Wilder said:

So now, can you admit that all you really care about is winning that game of X-Wing? Or will you keep deflecting and making self-serving arguments?

No because I wasn't playing that game.

What I'm arguing is that OP was not a D and that in fact it is the fool who made the idiotic mistake was a D for rage quitting rather than taking his lumps and playing the game and trying to find fun in the joy of playing rather than only wanting to win, which is clear that was what he wanted based on his behavior.

Your determination of who is a "Decent Human Being" based on playing tournament X wing is asinine though. I'll admit that.

Just now, SabineKey said:

But the OC's opponent wasn't thrown under a bus. A mistake was made and he had to live with it.

His opponent threw himself under the bus.

But this is the core tenant of Fly Casual. That if your opponent performs poorly and makes mistakes, then his opponent is the douchebag for not allowing take backsies.

It's no wonder that ParagoombaSlayer is a WAAC. Jeff Wilder and a substantial portion of the game's community think he's an ******* for his opponent's mistakes, so may as well go all in and have some fun with it. If people are going to hate you either way, may as well go all in.

No reason not to continue blowing away cops with your BAR if Clyde Barrow is already a dead man in the eyes of the law.

6 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

Why does it have to just be winning? Why can't someone both want to have fun and win?

In fact, I would argue that should be the goal, which is exactly why it's the decent thing to do to allow a clearly non-tactical catastrophic mistake to be fixed on the first turn of the game. If the OP had done so, both players had a chance at having fun, and both players had a chance at winning. Since he didn't, neither player had fun ... but, hey, the OP got the win.

This is exactly why inductive reasoning leads to the conclusion that those who wouldn't correct the mistake are in it solely for the win. If they were in it for fun and a chance to win, they're on the wrong side of the argument.

4 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

But the OC's opponent wasn't thrown under a bus. A mistake was made and he had to live with it.

One, it wasn't "just" a mistake. It was a clearly non-tactical, first turn, easily corrected mistake. Y'all can keep blowing past that like it doesn't matter -- because that serves your self-interest to do so -- but it does matter. If an opponent of yours, 10 turns into the game, decides to risk a 4-K and ends up off the board, nobody is going to even bat an eye when you hold him to it. That situation and this situation are vastly different.

Two, he didn't have to live with it. His opponent could have allowed him to correct it, had a laugh ... and played the game to have fun (and possibly win).

3 minutes ago, BlodVargarna said:

Your determination of who is a "Decent Human Being" based on playing tournament X wing is asinine though. I'll admit that.

No, it's just inductive reasoning. It's not for everyone, I know.

2 minutes ago, SaltMaster 5000 said:

His opponent threw himself under the bus.

But this is the core tenant [sic] of Fly Casual. That if your opponent performs poorly and makes mistakes, then his opponent is the douchebag for not allowing take backsies.

It's no wonder that ParagoombaSlayer is a WAAC. Jeff Wilder and a substantial portion of the game's community think he's an ******* for his opponent's mistakes, so may as well go all in and have some fun with it. If people are going to hate you either way, may as well go all in.

No reason not to continue blowing away cops with your BAR if Clyde Barrow is already a dead man in the eyes of the law.

What do we got here? (1) conflation with every mistake in the game -- no matter when it occurs, what it is, or whether it's tactics related -- ignoring the specifics, because that's just a little too much nuance, (2) re-framing of the argument as "blame for another person's mistakes," when literally nobody has said that (even once), and (3) persecution complex, leading to (4) "If I'm going to be judged for not doing the right thing, I might as well go all out and never do the right thing!"

Seems about right.

43 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

I wish just one of you would simply come right out and say, "I'd hold him to the maneuver because winning the game is what is most important to me."

As a player winning AND playing by the rules is more important to me than letting a players own mistake go unpunished.
As a TO/Judge I would call people out on breaking the rules by allowing the changing of a Dial. It collusion to change a likely outcome of a game, and nothing in the rules allow for anyone to allow it.

Double post

Just now, Holmelund said:

As a TO/Judge I would call people out on breaking the rules by allowing the changing of a Dial. It collusion to change a likely outcome of a game, and nothing in the rules allow for anyone to allow it.

And I would break the rules to allow it. But then, I'm not Lawful Evil.

Just now, Jeff Wilder said:

And I would break the rules to allow it. But then, I'm not Lawful Evil.

Neither am I a D&D charachter.

1 minute ago, Jeff Wilder said:

What do we got here? (1) conflation with every mistake in the game -- no matter when it occurs, what it is, or whether it's tactics related -- ignoring the specifics, because that's just a little too much nuance, (2) re-framing of the argument as "blame for another person's mistakes," when literally nobody has said that (even once), and (3) persecution complex, leading to (4) "If I'm going to be judged for not doing the right thing, I might as well go all out and never do the right thing!"

Seems about right.

1.) If this thread was about denying a free ACD cloak or a focus token that was missed, you'd react the same way.

2.) You are blaming player A for holding player B to his own mistakes. That's blaming someone for their opponent's mistakes.

3 & 4.) The Clyde Barrow analogy doesn't exactly fit here because Clyde Barrow was actually a criminal that deserved it, whereas someone like PGS is blamed for an opponent's mistake and is considered a jerk for it. At that point there is no reason not to go all in.

2 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

And I would break the rules to allow it. But then, I'm not Lawful Evil.

No just Smug and Self-Righteous. But those who disagree with you are evil. Who does that remind me of?

1 minute ago, BlodVargarna said:

No just Smug and Self-Righteous. But those who disagree with you are evil. Who does that remind me of?

That's prequel content and you should be ashamed of yourself.

So what you're saying is that Anakin in that scene was being merciful, forgiving mistakes, and not being ruthless and unforgiving?

That's certainly an interesting take on the scene, and does explain some things.

(Also, what SaltPGS 5000 said.)

37 minutes ago, BlodVargarna said:

Your determination of who is a "Decent Human Being" based on playing tournament X wing is asinine though. I'll admit that.

That's how you fly casual. Expect and sometimes even demand take backs and reminders for your own sloppy play and blame your mistake on your opponent, as if he did this to you. Judge others for how they play plastic space ships.

On 07/10/2017 at 2:34 PM, Joe Censored said:

Was it a **** move not letting opponent change his dial turn 1?

Did he have his phone out?

1 hour ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Because it's not fun playing a game handicapped by 40 points?

Keep making those transparently self-serving arguments, though. I wish just one of you would simply come right out and say, "I'd hold him to the maneuver because winning the game is what is most important to me." If nothing else, it would be refreshingly honest ... and truth is in short supply these days.

Ok then. I'd hold him to the maneuver because winning the game is what is most important to me.

Happy now? Of course I'm using your exact text because that's what you wanted to hear. If I'm going to a tournament I'm going to have some fun and hopefully win some games. If my opponent gives me such a golden opportunity you'd better believe I'll take it. Were it a completely meaningless game that's an entirely different story and as I've suggested the game could be continued at an entirely "for fun" game if the parties agreed to it.

You've brought up a line in the sand before and when you start getting into tournament there certainly is one. When will you be able to admit that?

23 minutes ago, StevenO said:

You've brought up a line in the sand before and when you start getting into tournament there certainly is one. When will you be able to admit that?

I can't and won't speak for other people, but I won't ever admit that, because for me it isn't true. I will always allow my opponent in tournament games to play as casually as in non-tournament games, to the extent he or she wants to.

Don't get me wrong: I'm a very competitive person, and I feel that weird "this game really matters" feeling that you're talking about. I really do (see below). And for the most part, I don't judge people for acting on that feeling. But there are limits, and the OP's question definitely falls within them for me: I am certainly judging someone who places so much importance on winning that he effectively prevents the game itself from even happening.

Someone earlier mentioned that I would make the same arguments about a missed ACD cloak, or about a missed focus token. He's wrong. (Unsurprisingly.) In most cases -- again, it depends on the preferences of my opponent -- I will allow people to correct such mistakes. But those are in-game tactical mistakes, and I don't judge other people for not allowing people to correct them.

Because -- no matter how many people keep behaving as if otherwise -- there is a real difference between the "beginning of game" and "actually playing the game" scenarios. That difference matters.

Continuing from my observations about that "tournament game feeling," above:

I do pretty well in tournaments. I've won seven or so Store Championships, literally dozens of other small tournaments, and in the four Regionals I've played I've finished 6th, 2nd, 8th, and *mumble*bad*mumble*. But Regionals are the highest level tournaments I play (and for that reason, I nearly always drop after Swiss, so as not to deny prizes or a Bye to someone who will use it), precisely because I feel that "this game really means something" feeling. That feeling threatens to warp my behavior, such that, hey, I might deny someone a chance to correct a first-turn non-tactical mistake, just because I want to win so badly. Or my already existing bitterness at dice -- I'm recovering, really -- might hit a level where I behave in a way I regret.

I don't want my behavior warped that way, so I play no higher than Regionals. And, all the way up through Regionals, I will allow my opponent to play as casually as he indicates he wishes to. I'm not a saint ... I'm competitive, and I want to win. But there are simply lines I won't cross to win, and for me that line is more about ethics, morality (such as it is, in a game), and actually playing the game than it is about anything else.

1 hour ago, Jeff Wilder said:

In fact, I would argue that should be the goal, which is exactly why it's the decent thing to do to allow a clearly non-tactical catastrophic mistake to be fixed on the first turn of the game. If the OP had done so, both players had a chance at having fun, and both players had a chance at winning. Since he didn't, neither player had fun ... but, hey, the OP got the win.

This is exactly why inductive reasoning leads to the conclusion that those who wouldn't correct the mistake are in it solely for the win. If they were in it for fun and a chance to win, they're on the wrong side of the argument.

One, it wasn't "just" a mistake. It was a clearly non-tactical, first turn, easily corrected mistake. Y'all can keep blowing past that like it doesn't matter -- because that serves your self-interest to do so -- but it does matter. If an opponent of yours, 10 turns into the game, decides to risk a 4-K and ends up off the board, nobody is going to even bat an eye when you hold him to it. That situation and this situation are vastly different.

Two, he didn't have to live with it. His opponent could have allowed him to correct it, had a laugh ... and played the game to have fun (and possibly win).

You are confusing decent with nice. Your logic could be used to say that the first few strikes or fumbles in Baseball or Football shouldn't count. Games like Magic have guidelines for ditching a bad first hand, but there is a price. This is why you should double and triple check dials. This is why you should measure out how much space certain maneuvers take to better predict where you will end up. Because in the end, when one makes a mistake (which initial or not, it was), one has to accept responsibility for it. Not the other player.

Also, your use of the term "inductive reasoning" doesn't actually prove your point. One could also use inductive reasoning to deduce that the op is inexperienced, came across a situation he was unsure about and appealed to a someone who should be sure in this situation. Your discounting of this possibility can suggest an observer basis rather than a logical application of inductive reasoning.

What happened was still a mistake. One that is clearly depicted in the rules. A crap thing to do is to let someone make a small rules infraction until it is advantageous to you to deny it. Following the rules isn't anywhere near the same, like you seem to imply.

You keep implying that the op was under obligation to let the person take the move back, but all he was under obligation to do was to play fairly and to conduct himself civilly. Anything more, including the taking back of a first round mistake, is beyond the requirements of sportsmanship. It is a kindness to be encouraged, but not required, lest the act become sullied and resented. In life and in play, one must live with the consequences of their actions, whether good or ill.

When I first posted in this topic, I spoke of expectations and how they can twist the issue. What you are saying is an example of twisted expectations. This is only be a crap action if you believe someone is entitled to receive mercy, rather than view it as a gift that is meant to be freely given and not forced.

To clarify something, in this situation, I would have let the opponent redo the move for a variety of personal reasons. But doing that doesn't make me better than someone who held to the rules. Nor does it mean that a person only cares about winning. Again, that is a twisting something that should be celebrated as above and beyond the call to a boring obligation.

And please refrain from labeling me "lawful evil". That is just a nerdy version of name calling, the lamest of comebacks. I've found those who resort to name calling usually are running out of legitimate responses.

Daaaaag! @SabineKey took you to school @Jeff Wilder !

2 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

You keep implying that the op was under obligation to let the person take the move back, but all he was under obligation to do was to play fairly and to conduct himself civilly.

No, you keep conflating "minimum obligatory behavior" with decency.

If someone gets short-changed significantly by a cashier (assume accidentally), someone watching the transaction has no obligation to say anything. All he has an obligation to do is watch.

But if he's a decent person, he will say something.

(For the abstract-thinking-challenged, the above is not intended as a direct analogy to the original post. It's intended to illustrate the following sentence:)

"Minimum obligatory behavior" is not enough to reach "Decent Human Being" status. Apparently that stings for some folks, but it simply isn't.

Would a @Jeff Wilder sanctioned "Decent Human Being" (tm) have rage quit because he was not going to win the game?

Forming a human chain to rescue people drowning in the ocean is the decent thing to do.

Letting a fool get a take backsies in a tournament level game of X wing is as @SabineKey puts it "nice." (And depending on the motivation maybe even patronizing or condescending).

8 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

No, you keep conflating "minimum obligatory behavior" with decency.

If someone gets short-changed significantly by a cashier (assume accidentally), someone watching the transaction has no obligation to say anything. All he has an obligation to do is watch.

But if he's a decent person, he will say something.

(For the abstract-thinking-challenged, the above is not intended as a direct analogy to the original post. It's intended to illustrate the following sentence:)

"Minimum obligatory behavior" is not enough to reach "Decent Human Being" status. Apparently that stings for some folks, but it simply isn't.

Your example still doesn't prove that the op is in the wrong. The stakes are different in that example than they are in a game. As is the implication of a person's "silence". It even fails to properly set up your "stinger" sentence.

Again, I would like to ask why the venom? You seem to be going after the op's actions like some did against the cheater during worlds. Someone who just followed the rules. Why?

3 minutes ago, BlodVargarna said:

Would a @Jeff Wilder sanctioned "Decent Human Being" (tm) have rage quit because he was not going to win the game?

Forming a human chain to rescue people drowning in the ocean is the decent thing to do.

Letting a fool get a take backsies in a tournament level game of X wing is as @SabineKey puts it "nice." (And depending on the motivation maybe even patronizing or condescending).

Nailed it. The only thing that stings is the self-righteous smuggery some people are peddling. And I probably would have allowed the dude to change it. Now, I'm tempted just to say at the beginning of round (only in a tourney) "the first round does matter" I'm kind of shocked we're all fighting about this, but it's probably a case of "arguing so fiercely because the stakes are so small"

3 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

Again, I would like to ask why the venom? You seem to be going after the op's actions like some did against the cheater during worlds. Someone who just followed the rules. Why?

I disagree that there's any "venom." All of the venom is on the other side. (Hell, you even have your own sycophantic cheering section, which I'm guessing mildly embarrasses you. If I'm right, that's to your credit.) I'm simply making arguments.

I also object to the characterization of me "going after the op's actions," because it's misleading. I actually applaud the OP's actions, because while he made a mistake, he was also Decent Human Being enough that he felt genuinely bad about it ... bad enough to bare his soul here, ask opinions, and -- holy Mother of God, rarest of rare -- change his mind. I think the OP might be the best person in this thread, so please stop trying to rhetorically characterize my arguments as attacks on him.

And as for why I'm so vocal about situations like this, there are intertwined reasons:

(1) I've been playing from very near the beginning. Competitive X-Wing has changed, in a way that I feel is very negative, and in such a way that it even drove the very first World Champion out of the game. (And Doug and I did not see eye to eye in everything, believe me.) And it continues to get worse, in fits and starts, partially because of the developmental direction of the game itself, but partially because of the type of player being increasingly drawn to it.

(2) I feel compassion for players like the OP -- who did something that a significant fraction of the community thinks is fine, yet he felt terrible about -- and the OP's opponent, who faced a "you're kidding" moment, to the extent that he didn't feel it was reasonable to even play the game. If you actually knew me, you'd find it hilarious that I am non-ironically using the word "compassion," but I am. If X-Wing is destined to change into a game solely for people who applaud kicking someone in the teeth when he's down, so be it, but I'm going to fight it. I'm equipped to fight it, and as long as I'm a player of the game, I'll fight for people who think there should be more to it than "just following the rules, no matter what."

Fun fact: At regionals events or higher you're not even allowed to grant any take backsies at all.

I forgot what the tiers are called, but only the first tier allows for take backsies. Anything beyond that and you're not allowed any.

So not only is allowing a dial change always illegal, allowing normal, "oh you forgot to focus, go ahead" take backsies isn't legal past a certain point.