5 minutes ago, drjkel said:

I know you like precision. Look at the first sentence again. Whether it was their intent or not (because, why not get intent into this mess?), they say it's "an individual at a tournament." We could argue semantics with telepresence and all, but stream watchers are not generally at the event itself, that would be way too meta and a waste of a data plan. With telepresence, it is generally assumed that both parties know exactly who is where, which is not the case with streams since one party is basically anonymous to the other and cannot interact except through third party actually at the event.

I have a perfect solution though: have a screen reader read out Twitch chat on a large speaker in event halls, so that Twitch chat would in effect be present to all players remotely. I see no drawbacks to that plan

You're right... except my quote was in regards to *me* cheating by flagging judges. So... I was at the tournament.

As for Paul - I anxiously await his impending sanctions from FFG...

(we're not going to stop trying to flag judges for game states)

1 minute ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Nobody had a serious problem with it because (1) we were operating under the assumption that the players would probably catch it (which they eventually did), and (2) because while a re-used TL might make a difference in the game, Quickdraw surviving for extra rounds is definitely going to have a real, not speculative, impact on the game. (Including, most likely, ending it right there.)

The situations are different, and of different magnitude, and because we're human beings, we're (well, most of us are) able to process those differences and weigh them against alternatives to make a decision.

That said, I very much appreciate when people are all "must follow the rules, 100%, everything must be absolutely consistent, alway ," because it makes it significantly easier for me to determine who's not worth reading or listening to.

Ok so the different decisions were based on a subjective call about the relevance or magnitude of the illegal game state in question. Because just as you must trigger the harpoon condition, surely you must spend the target lock to use it to re-roll dice.

So it's not about upholding the rules at all times anymore, it's about your assessment of when and where the rules should be upheld. I've been an official for many years and I don't think that such subjectivity makes for good officiating, do you? I don't base my decisions on what the fans think I should do based on how important they think it is, maybe I should, but I doubt it.

12 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

As for Paul - I anxiously await his impending sanctions from FFG...

I anxiously await the judge Illuminati and friends getting their cellphone numbers posted in twitch chat and watching their phones explode everytime someone thinks something's not quite right.

Of course these decisions are based on whether -- and how much -- the illegal game-state matters. I mean, duh .

But ... thank you. Now I know, and knowing is half the battle ®.

Just now, Jeff Wilder said:

Of course these decisions are based on whether -- and how much -- the illegal game-state matters. I mean, duh .

But ... thank you. Now I know, and knowing is half the battle ®.

So if you were a judge and saw that he failed to spend the target lock while the same round of combat was going on, like the chat did, you would be ok saying nothing because it's small peanuts?

Just now, YourHucklebrry said:

So if you were a judge and saw that he failed to spend the target lock while the same round of combat was going on, like the chat did, you would be ok saying nothing because it's small peanuts?

Nope. Because I'm a human being, capable of weighing circumstances and reasoning to a course of action (or inaction), I can determine that while the effect on the game-state is small to non-existent, fixing it is not only trivial, it's also actually my job.

A human being should be capable of weighing circumstances and reasoning to a conclusion and a course of action (or inaction). Not all are. Obviously.

2 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Nope. Because I'm a human being, capable of weighing circumstances and reasoning to a course of action (or inaction), I can determine that while the effect on the game-state is small to non-existent, fixing it is not only trivial, it's also actually my job.

A human being should be capable of weighing circumstances and reasoning to a conclusion and a course of action (or inaction). Not all are. Obviously.

So you would behave differently as an on-site judge, nothing wrong with that. But instead, as a fan watching on stream, you are ok with fans picking when and where they put on the judge hat, based on weighing the circumstances and reasoning out the most impartial and fair way to proceed of course. So at best you have a judge and a part time judge.

But we're not perfect, fans usually have interests and players and people they want to see do well. At worst, you have fans with a vested interest in the success of the lists or players who only put on the judge hat when it will benefit their party. It is incredibly hard to tell the difference, particularly online and when the more vested fans are remotely clever about hiding their rooting interest.

Most of the time we react somewhere in between, we strike some balance between being fair and rooting for what we care about. So knowing that, why don't we delegate like the rest of the world does? Why not let fans be fans and judges be judges? Fans can enjoy the game, cheer for whoever they want, not have to worry about trying to flick an on/off switch and going into computer mode whenever something improper happens. Meanwhile judges can do their job, striving to be impartial at all times and enforcing the rules fairly to the best of their abilities. What's wrong with that?

Just now, Jeff Wilder said:

That is not what I've said. You need to go back and represent my actual position, then I'll bother reading. (Maybe.)

My bad, what did I misrepresent?

On 3/19/2018 at 9:40 AM, DicesonFire said:

it's about the finals of the Canadian Nationals? Where a) Quickdraw was Harpooned, but forgot to trigger the condition when she received a critical. b) in the next turn, Quickdraw dies, and forgot to trigger the condition (the splash damage). c) Late in the game, Miranda was target locked by Omega Leader, but still used C3PO.

I mean, it was a final of a National Venue. Or maybe they (casters and judge) didn't care enough, after all, it was a non-canadian final, between two brothers. They were bloody **** salty.

In all fairness. The Howards did not want to play the final match. I know this because I was there. So why would they care if they missed a few things? Besides, this game is ALL about missed opportunities whether it be from maneuvers, dice, or pilot skills. Allowing spectators to interrupt a game is setting a huge precedent. The competitive game is already in a nasty place, why make it worse?

3 hours ago, NeverBetTheFett said:

Allowing spectators to interrupt a game is setting a huge precedent. The competitive game is already in a nasty place, why make it worse?

I agree. Any spectators interfering should be punished according to the official floor rules published by FFG.

4 hours ago, NeverBetTheFett said:

In all fairness. The Howards did not want to play the final match. I know this because I was there. So why would they care if they missed a few things? Besides, this game is ALL about missed opportunities whether it be from maneuvers, dice, or pilot skills. Allowing spectators to interrupt a game is setting a huge precedent. The competitive game is already in a nasty place, why make it worse?

OK, going to be the better man.

Nobody says that spectators should interrupt a game. But a judge should. All everybody wants is, a game should follow its rules, specially in the finals, specially if you stream it.
The quality of that games is so low, and thats started the conversation.