25 minutes ago, EVIL INC said:

direct altering of game results

Perhaps we're discussing different instances. I'm not refering to altering game results. The results are as is. "I concede, you win." that's the result, and that's what's reported. Altering game results would be, "I won, but lets write down that you won with a score of X-Y".

3 minutes ago, Killerardvark said:

Perhaps we're discussing different instances. I'm not refering to altering game results. The results are as is. "I concede, you win." that's the result, and that's what's reported. Altering game results would be, "I won, but lets write down that you won with a score of X-Y".

And that is EXACTLY the situation we are discussing.Game results are determined by score. You concede when you are losing. A concession leaves the score of the winning player as being higher. ANYTHING else is a direct and intentional breaking of the entire system as it was not intended. This is outlined in black and white in the rules.

7 minutes ago, EVIL INC said:

And that is EXACTLY the situation we are discussing.Game results are determined by score. You concede when you are losing. A concession leaves the score of the winning player as being higher. ANYTHING else is a direct and intentional breaking of the entire system as it was not intended. This is outlined in black and white in the rules.

If I'm winning 150 to 75 and I concede, all my ships are destroyed and I lose 200 to 150. I report a 200 to 150 loss. No results have been altered.

25 minutes ago, EVIL INC said:

Changing the subject to a different topic midstream?

Right, what is this wizardry, hypotheticals in an ethics discussion. Unheard of and only distracting.

Last try, maybe you'll see the link and why it is not a different topic.

Compare two situations:

1. The one we have here. A player who realizes at the end of the game and when he is winning that he could concede to potentially have an easy matchup in the cut.

2. The hypothetical one. A player who realizes at the beginning of a game that he could concede to potentially have an easy matchup in the cut.

Is there a difference between the two? If yes or no, why?

As side note, you keep bringing up that he came into the tournament with that intention. That, too, is a hypothetical because @Crimsonwarlock in the very first post sounds as if the thought only occurred to him at the end of the game. That means he did NOT go " into a tournament with the intent to throw games in order to ensure easier future matches in order to win the overall tournament.", and did NOT go "into a tournament with the game plan of throwing matches that they have otherwise won". Also you are factually wrong to say that this is "impossible without the collusion of the other player".

Read the rules. Your alter the resulting the of a game with the express purpose of skewing the system in a way unintended by the game and tournament designers and organizers for your personal benefit. Tht is the very definition of altering the game results Which breaks at least one rule. Plus the fact that you are colluding with the other player to do it because you both have to sign off on it.

BUT, I notice that your STILL trying to justify it in an online forum and not putting it into practice. Instead of just spamming the thread, actually go out to a tournament or two, and as I said, honestly outline to the TO and judges the plan and THEN come back to reply by telling us how that conversation went. It is TOs and judges you need to convince, not me. I'm just some random guy in an online forum with 30 years of playing in miniature gaming tournaments trying to share my views and how I have seen these sorts of situations play out in practice.

In practice, if you keep it under wraps and a secret, you will get away with it. I usually kept my mouth shut because to me, I won by getting to play all day. Prizes are just extra if it happens. But if your honest and outline it all as explained earlier, ... I'm reasonably sure youll get told no and watched to ensure you dont. But like I said, try it and THEN reply with what happened.

EDIT: Factually both players signing off on a scoresheet that one player won who did not actually do so is collusion. They agree to it with the bribe of the free win to entice the losing player to sign it and keep their mouth shut.

I give up. At this point I can't tell whether it's intentional or not, and both are equally disturbing.

Exactly, the best way to win is by playing every game in an honest fashion trying to win. To me that is more rewarding than a physical trinket or trinkets for a prize that I would not felt I had earned. To me, just getting to play a game I enjoy all day with others who share my hobby and enthusiasm in it without having to worry about job, family drama, car repairs (or whatever other things stress you out) is a win in and of itself. That safe temporary retreat into the fantasy world is all the prize I need.

Dont get me wrong, I play to win and enjoy the trinket prizes if I win them, but they are just extra if I win. This attitude and my enthusiasm for the hobby aspect of the games I play always get me higher score through painting scoring and votes in sportsmanship. Those are means of getting ahead beyond playing to win and winning that are actually built into the system of many tournaments that could help folk who might otherwise feel bad about scoring low.

Off topic, but I feel that the pre-painted models takes away from the hobby aspect of the game that could otherwise be scored in events.

You keep saying to go to a tournament and try this on a judge... I am the judge, lol.

If a player asks me if they can concede, I ask "did you discuss it with your opponent at all?" if the answer is no, it's legal. Why is never part of the equation as long as that first question is justified.

37 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Right, what is this wizardry, hypotheticals in an ethics discussion. Unheard of and only distracting.

Last try, maybe you'll see the link and why it is not a different topic.

Compare two situations:

1. The one we have here. A player who realizes at the end of the game and when he is winning that he could concede to potentially have an easy matchup in the cut.

2. The hypothetical one. A player who realizes at the beginning of a game that he could concede to potentially have an easy matchup in the cut.

Is there a difference between the two? If yes or no, why?

As side note, you keep bringing up that he came into the tournament with that intention. That, too, is a hypothetical because @Crimsonwarlock in the very first post sounds as if the thought only occurred to him at the end of the game. That means he did NOT go " into a tournament with the intent to throw games in order to ensure easier future matches in order to win the overall tournament.", and did NOT go "into a tournament with the game plan of throwing matches that they have otherwise won". Also you are factually wrong to say that this is "impossible without the collusion of the other player".

Clarification:

Yes, the situation as I described it came up in a real game. No, I did not concede (For many of the excellent reasons pointed out in this thread, despite really wanting to help out my friend).

I even had another person ask why I didn't concede and let my friend into the cut since I was locked up for a spot.

YOU are the single judge who judges all x wing games in the entire world. That must mean you have a pretty busy schedule. Documentation to prove this available?

Because otherwise, we have only your word that you are a judge at all or if by chance you are one, you would be only one among the thousands. From your lack of reading the rules, it is showing that you are not. the rules are not a menu where you get to pick one from column A and 2 from column B. You need to follow ALL of them.

But by all means, rather than justify it on an online forum, go to an actual tournament and outline your plan to the actual judges beforehand and then come back and post how it goes.

BTW, BOTH players signing off is collusion. Without that collusion, the players would be turning in different results. You do not have to have a notarized documented contract in triplicate to be in collusion. A simple...

"I concede the game"

"but you won it"

"just sign the sheet, you get a free win"

Is collusion as is....

"why does it say I won when I lost? Ahh well, you already signed it that way so I'll take it *and signs off as well*"

5 minutes ago, Crimsonwarlock said:

Clarification:

Yes, the situation as I described it came up in a real game. No, I did not concede (For many of the excellent reasons pointed out in this thread, despite really wanting to help out my friend).

I even had another person ask why I didn't concede and let my friend into the cut since I was locked up for a spot.

Thank you for being honest. A game is not a game if all participants are not honest. I've lost MANY tournaments and only started winning/placing after I started attending ones where the hobby aspect played a part. And truth be told, all of the losses made me a better player as well.

Unfortunately, it appears a few saw your post and took that as a good idea to win tournaments that way. They might even sneak it past the judges. I've seen worse stuff get by them. I'm just being badgered because I'm not giving my personal blessing lol

Me: Worlds judge twice, System Open judge twice, System Open marshal once, USA Nationals judge, North American Championship judge

Also confirmed it's ok by Michael Jures (North American Championship 2x judge and marshal this year, upcoming worlds judge, System open judge 3x), Iain Hamp (Marshalled more system opens that I can count, worlds judge 3x), and Brent Wong (Worlds judge 4x i think, System open marshall and judge multiple times, North American Championship multiple times, etc.)

I now challenge you to go to any tournament above a Hyperspace Trial and try to call a judge on someone doing this. There's a decent chance you'll get one of these people and be disappointed.

It's completely ok to think it's not ethical. That's a very real debate and I don't fault anyone who refuses to concede by principal. Stick to your morals. It's in no way illegal though.

nice claims. So, YOU are the SOLE judge of all tournaments large AND small worldwide (only your word that your one at all) . there is not a SINGLE judge who would judge against it? The game designers specifically left that loophole because they intended for it to be used that way?

I'm just pointing out that after carefully reading the rules, they say it is against the rules. You can read them a different way if you so choose. Go to an actual tournament and try it out, carefully outlining the entire plan and intent of it o the jusges and TO. Then come back and post how it goes.

Funny how you seem so intent to badger and tell me i have to change my mind or opinion on this. There must be an upcoming tournament and want this thread buried before it comes time to keep the topic out of public view buried on back pages.

But the rules are there in black and white. I feel it is unethical (as does many others here who just gave up trying to point out that they have a right to their opinion.

3 minutes ago, EVIL INC said:

Funny how you seem so intent to badger and tell me i have to change my mind or opinion on this. There must be an upcoming tournament and want this thread buried before it comes time to keep the topic out of public view buried on back pages.

You do realize no one cares, right?

Players really can concede any time they want, and the only official limiter is the discussion part.

Whether it's legal is separate from whether it's ethical. I thought the discussion was on ethics?

6 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

You do realize no one cares, right?

Players really can concede any time they want, and the only official limiter is the discussion part.

Whether it's legal is separate from whether it's ethical. I thought the discussion was on ethics?

He's right, you know.

Thats what I've been saying.

The rules are the rules. We all have different interpretations of them. they are there in black and white. if you have this plan and want to put it into place, talk to the TO and judges of the event your going to try it in. The interpretation of the rules that THEY have are the ones that count at that event. I would honestly like to see it brought up at a wide variety of tournaments with different officials to get a well rounded overall view from them. There could even be an event where the judges do not agree. how would that be handled? TO tie breaker. Whatever the case, NOT a plan I would have going into an even even if i did think it was ethical because my entire plan would fall apart if they ruled against it.

Concessions are built into the game with the intent of someone getting their butt handed to them to give up to prevent further humiliation or to speed the process up by finishing a done deal, not to give specific players easier games and let people who have otherwise lost move ahead instead of someone who has. That would be a good question to ask the game designers to verify though...

We are talking about ethics. I'm just being badgered because I stated that I personally felt it would be unethical and followed up with why i felt that way.

Now to further muddy the ethical waters, is it more or less ethical for me to kill one X-Wing pilot (who's supposedly 'good') than an entire swarm of TIE Academy pilots (who are 'evil'). Are these young pilots truly evil simply because of the cause they are supporting which they may or may not even understand. And even if they are does it make it more ethical to kill more of them than killing one supposedly 'good' rebel?

Let's do some real hypothetical moral jousting.

3 minutes ago, EVIL INC said:

We are talking about ethics. I'm just being badgered because I stated that I personally felt it would be unethical and followed up with why i felt that way. 

Just to be clear, the ethics are debatable and you are welcome to your opinion. Heck, i'm somewhere in the middle on it. I just want to make sure people are aware that it's currently legal, at least at the bigger FFG sanctioned events. Like you said, check with your judges if you're at a smaller event.

5 minutes ago, Dr Moneypants said:

Now to further muddy the ethical waters, is it more or less ethical for me to kill one X-Wing pilot (who's supposedly 'good') than an entire swarm of TIE Academy pilots (who are 'evil'). Are these young pilots truly evil simply because of the cause they are supporting which they may or may not even understand. And even if they are does it make it more ethical to kill more of them than killing one supposedly 'good' rebel?

Let's do some real hypothetical moral jousting.

FROM MY POINT OF VIEW THE JEDI ARE EVIL!!!!

I'm not welcome to my opinion, you've spent how many pages now telling me I dont have the right to it or the right to point out why I think it is unethical.

14 minutes ago, Killerardvark said:

FROM MY POINT OF VIEW THE JEDI ARE EVIL!!!!

Ahhh a moral relativist. I like it. What else have y'all got?

this threads still going, huh

Just now, svelok said:

this threads still going, huh

I refuse to concede, it's unethical.

Now, am I right in assuming the tie pilots are clones also? Not that they would not have the same right to live, just assuming that would have been indoctrinated from birth. But then again....we saw in recent movies, we saw that there can be good ones in those ranks.

So to this, I' would have to go with the ethics of the overall structure rather than the individuals. much as we do with war today.

4 minutes ago, Killerardvark said:

I refuse to concede, it's unethical.

Ahh, so you finally came to the same conclusion i did on page one. Be careful to not say why you think it is unethical or you might have someone harass you for 6 pages telling you you are not allowed to have that opinion..