2 minutes ago, svelok said:

this threads still going, huh

tbh I think the ethical question is interesting. My hypothetical was not in bad faith, I think one is worse than the other, but I can't say why.

And I do have a small personal interest in the question. In my case (not at a real life tournament), I forgot to engage and shoot with a ship. I skipped it and went to the next. I realized after and repeated the shot right away (the order didn't really matter). It became clear to me that my opponent wasn't happy with it, but also didn't want to insist on repeating everything or that I had missed my opportunity to attack. Technically, at a real event, we would have had to roll back the shot and then repeat it as far as I'm aware of the current opinions. Anyway, that had a big influence on the rest of the game. I was easily ahead when I shouldn't be if we had skipped the shot. So I conceded right before we had to call time.

So in my case I conceded to restore what I perceived to be the "correct" outcome. Yet that must irk @EVIL INC because I did it to alter the outcome. In this case it wasn't for my personal gain, but I doubt he'll make that distinction.

What did you do wrong, @GreenDragoon , that made you think losing was the "correct" outcome?

Speaking personally, I would concede if I had done something wrong (even accidentally) that affected the outcome ... but as far as I can tell, you didn't. You made a procedural mistake, then took the steps to correct it, and because of the correction, you effectively won, but then conceded?

Why?

See now, you resort to making stuff up huh? That tells something. We discussed your santa claus situation. it is a different hypothetical. We are specifically addressing the situation of someone intentionally going into a tournament with the express plan of throwing games to win the tournament by manipulating the system to ensure future games are easy wins for the grand prize. two entirely different situations.

i refer you to one of my first posts. it seems to me much like the conversation D&D players have with alignments. Chaotic evil, lawful good and so forth.

To me, the person going in with the plan in mind as the OP was asking about the possibility of I would put in the lawful evil catagory. The person who does it on the spur of the moment to get ahead would be nuetral evil. The chaotic evil person would just kick the other player and bash them in the head.

To me, I feel that i would fall into the lawful good catagory in that i would not do it period. The santa claus situation person would be more chaotic good.

You can be an ethical person who is evil and a good person who is unethical. The "correct" decision is not always the good one or the ethical one. We are all humans and we all have different views and opinions. For example, to me, hounding a person harassing them simply because they have a different opinion on a topic telling them they dont have a right to the opinion is unethical. BUT, thats just my opinion.

At the end of the day, a person may or may not get away with it or a judge may or may not be ok with it. it is not up to random forum members, talk to the actual judges and the ethics is a purely person thing that we should all have our right to have opinions of.

27 minutes ago, EVIL INC said:

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.

They are definitely not clones. Now is is more ethical to kill a group of indoctrinated individuals working to further a structurally evil government than kill a single person working for a so called 'good' cause?

I will make this thread about ethics!!!!!!!!!

In war, Id have to go with big picture and go with the good or bad of the cause.

16 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

What  did you do wrong, @GreenDragoon , that made you think losing was the "correct" outcome? 

Because I imposed my solution without room for discussion. The "how" was wrong. It felt like he meekly accepted it (seriously, without stupid jokes!). My solution was technically wrong but had the essentially same outcome as the correct one. That still felt wrong, and tainted the rest of the game.

From my point of view I could be a jerk and correct, or nice and maybe ethically wrong. Sounds weird, but that was my perception.

54 minutes ago, EVIL INC said:

The rules are the rules. We all have different interpretations of them. they are there in black and white.

That's pretty confusing. Any rules that are "black and white" don't need interpreting.

First, I can confirm that Killerardvark is a Big Deal in the Judges.

Second, at every single high level event, judges will permit you to concede any match, at any time, without penalty, as long as you do not technically violate the collusion rule. Judges at lower levels vary in quality, and you might get bad rulings, but this should be the case at all events unless FFG tells us otherwise.

Those two items aren't opinions, but fact.

Who harassed you for having opinions?

Aardvark for one hounding me for pages telling me I dont have the right to think that it is unethical or the right to explain why I have that opinion.

My view on collusion is that both players need to sign off on a match. This is to prevent one player slipping in wins without the other player verifying it. When both players sign off, they are both agreeing that the results on the sheet are what played out. Now, the opinion comes in there is whether or not there is collusion. What constitutes collusion? Does it have to be a written contract or can it be both agreeing to results that did not play out.

There is also the parts where they state intended. Did the game designers and tournament TO intend for folks to pick and choose games to throw? My view is that they only intended for people to try to win.

2 hours ago, EVIL INC said:

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.

I have to wonder if the game would be as popular as it is if the models weren't pre-painted. I know some people really like painting their own models, but I know I, for one, wouldn't have even picked up the game if I had to paint every model myself.

21 minutes ago, EVIL INC said:

The chaotic evil person would just kick the other player and bash them in the head.

That would probably fall under Chaotic Evil, but that's kind of an extreme example. Perhaps a broader instance of CE would simply be cheating.

9 minutes ago, EVIL INC said:

My view on collusion is that both players need to sign off on a match. This is to prevent one player slipping in wins without the other player verifying it. When both players sign off, they are both agreeing that the results on the sheet are what played out. Now, the opinion comes in there is whether or not there is collusion. What constitutes collusion? Does it have to be a written contract or can it be both agreeing to results that did not play out.

I think collusion has more to do with intent.

If my opponent concedes in order to game the system, I may accept while having no idea what he's doing. I'm simply agreeing that he conceded and I accepted, not saying I approve of attempts to manipulate scores. For it to be collusion, both parties need to be in on the scheme.

9 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

I have to wonder if the game would be as popular as it is if the models weren't pre-painted. I know some people really like painting their own models, but I know I, for one, wouldn't have even picked up the game if I had to paint every model myself.

I think collusion has more to do with intent.

If my opponent concedes in order to game the system, I may accept while having no idea what he's doing. I'm simply agreeing that he conceded and I accepted, not saying I approve of attempts to manipulate scores. For it to be collusion, both parties need to be in on the scheme.

Been painting GW models since 82. Of course, my painting got a LOT better since then. lol My last army being an infantry heavy guard army so trust me, I KNOW the draw or pre-painted models. I cant even half see without reader glasses to paint now so I havnt for a while. Shoot me now for eyeballing legion......

but with prepainted it adds more to the win or lose aspect of the game and makes the "hobby" aspect lesser in my eyes. i know you can paint and convert prepainted but few do. and virtually eradicates the "hobby aspect" from events like tournaments. I see this drawing more win or lose players attending them because... well, I'm sure ya see where i'm getting. lol I do personally enjoy prepainted though. That was a good thing about DUST. you could get either way with them (although their painted was WAY overpriced).

While they may not know exactly what the plan was, but any reasonable person would know something was up. The question would be do they ask, or take the offered free win? But you can see where interpretation comes in on this.

20 minutes ago, EVIL INC said:

Aardvark for one hounding me for pages telling me I dont have the right to think that it is unethical or the right to explain why I have that opinion.

My view on collusion is that both players need to sign off on a match. This is  to prevent one player slipping in wins without the other player verifying it. When both players sign off, they are both agreeing that the results on the sheet are what played out. Now, the opinion comes in  there is whether or not there is collusion. What constitutes collusion? Does it have to be a written contract or can it be both agreeing to results that did not play out.

There is also the parts where they state intended. Did the game designers and tournament TO intend for folks to pick and choose games to throw? My view is that they only intended for people to try to win.

FFG defined what constitutes collusion. In black and white. And not open to interpretation. Are we discussing that legality, or the way you believe things ought to be? I admit, I only skimmed the past 7 pages, but it seemed that Aardvark was simply explaining the former.

As far as the latter, concessions do involve all manner of ethical issues, and you have the right to espouse whatever views you deem fit. There are legitimate reasons to concede though. A player who is guaranteed to make cut might want to take a round off to rest, or to avoid tipping her hand against an opponent she'll likely meet again in the cut.

In terms of intent, that's all well and good, but I've discussed this with FFG OP. There's no real way to force someone to play a game that they don't want to. So they defined collusion and prohibited that particular behavior. There can exist ethically permissible reasons for conceding matches, and your choice of diction (pick and choose games to throw) is guilty of begging the question.

Have you actually read it? I copied and pasted the section in question. heres a link to them so you can read over them.

https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/e0/4f/e04f6d73-6e5e-4351-b067-0020f070365a/fantasy_flight_floor_rules.pdf

They gave an EXAMPLE or two but they by no means outlined each and every possible permutation. There is still room for interpretation. That is a large part of why we have judges in the first place. (although because I have a different view on what is ethical, we have at a judge here who would ban me before the event even started without being allowed to unpack my models).

The different reasons for conceding are varied and many of them, I could agree with but we arent discussing those. TO ME. going into an event with the express purpose of using that for personal benefit in the specific way outlined is unethical. i've been told for 7 pages now that I dont have the right to have that opinion.

14 minutes ago, EVIL INC said:

i've been told for 7 pages now that I dont have the right to have that opinion.

You've misread. And to some extent -- it's honestly difficult for me to say exactly to what extent, because of the sheer repetition -- you have misspoken.

You've said that it's against the rules to concede. It's not. Full stop. It is not against the rules to concede.

It's against the rules to collude , which may or may not lead to a (tainted) concession, but that's not the same thing.

You've said that the simple act of confirming a submitted score constitutes collusion. It does not. Full stop. It could certainly be a step in collusion, but in and of itself, it's not collusion.

You've conflated rules illegality with ethics, which muddies the waters, because (in a perfect world) ethics and the rules would be congruent. By arguing in such as a way as to imply that they already are, you're doing a disservice to that ideal.

As far as I've seen, @Killerardvark has solely been trying to correct you on the rules , which on the topic of concession are pretty unambiguous ... which is to say he's been trying to correct you where you're factually wrong. I haven't seen anybody tell you you don't have the right to an opinion, except, of course, where any opinion is about something factual, and you simply have the facts wrong. (Facts aren't subject to opinion. One does not have an "opinion" on something when one has the facts wrong ... one is simply mistaken about it. Or, c.f. American politics, one is deliberately lying about it.)

In some cases, it is unethical to concede. In other cases, it is not. The OP outlined a case in which it is unethical to concede (for the reasons stipulated). Only when other facts are added would the OP's situation become one of illegality, and that would be because of collusion -- or arguably sportsmanship -- not because of the simple fact of concession.

1 hour ago, GreenDragoon said:

Because I imposed my solution without room for discussion. The "how" was wrong.

Okay. I think you summed it up pretty well -- "jerk and correct," "nice but wrong." I think you chose a path of comity, which basically forked a new branch in the ethical tree. Most importantly, I'm guessing you'll handle it more cleanly next time.

There you go again telling me I do not have the right to have an opinion or to speak it. Now your also making stawmen and telling lies. Not once did I say it was against the rules to concede. Full stop.

https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/e0/4f/e04f6d73-6e5e-4351-b067-0020f070365a/fantasy_flight_floor_rules.pdf

Here is a link to the rules so that you can see that conceding is allowed. The term collusion leaves room for interpretation, especially when combined with such words as "intent". YOU may feel that signing off on an altered score in exchange for a free win is not collusion. that is your opinion. Not everyone shares it. full stop.

Your confusing rules and ethics. have done so throughout.There are different areas in the rules that need to be more carefully worded because they leave room for interpretation full stop.We can do this dance for as many pages as you like. We can go to page 999,999 if you want to troll for that long. I'm more than willing to maintain my opinion that intentionally artificially altering results for personal gain in a tournament is unethical. I realize that that opinion is anathama to you but it is not going to change.fullstop.

11 minutes ago, EVIL INC said:

Your confusing rules and ethics.

... I wouldn't say they're mine , Bob.

LOl. I know the full stops are confusing but i figured that since jeff felt the need to randomly scatter it, I might as well also. lol

@Jeff Wilder and whoever is interested.

Some made up scenarios on conceding the last swiss game where the player in question 100% makes cut and was downpaired with an opponent who has to win to make cut. What do you think about them? They are roughly ordered from benign to more malicious intent. Maybe important to point out that they all happen before the game really starts, or at latest in the first turn.

1. The player is tired and wants to eat/sleep early.
2. The player wants to join other people who already dropped or didn't participate in the first place and do something else instead of playing the - to him - inconsequential game (could be dinner, could be movies, could be a party, could be something very relaxing like a spa visit).
3. Same as nr2, but the player has made the plans before making cut and the event is behind schedule.
4. The player needs to catch a public transport option to get to his home for the night.
5. The player realizes that his opponent has only cardboard/standard stuff, or the player gets other clues that tell him his opponent likely never made cut before.
6. The player thinks his opponent has an amazing list that should get some additional exposure by making cut. (Specific here: a large international event with more exposition).
7. The player is passionate about the community's complaints when a faction doesn't make cut, knows by chance that his opponent is the only candidate to get into cut with a certain faction, and hopes he can prevent some complaints.
8. The opponent is in some form a minority in Xwing (child, woman, disabled, concealed carry guy others).
9. The opponent is a friend
10. The player suspects that his opponent is not as good due to the mov/wins and would like to add a worse player to the cut instead of a better one.
11. The player realizes that this is an easy matchup that he would like to play in the cut if possible

Personally I am completely fine with nr 3 and 4, a bit less with 1 and 2. Then 5 and 6 might be good intentions but still questionable at best if not outright unethical. The others are obvious to me (and I can't make up better examples).

As disclaimer: I had to concede a game once at a side event (hyperspace qualifier back in 2018) to catch a plane. We managed to play around 50min of it and it might have finished before I had to leave. That's probably my bias for nr4.

5 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

• The player is tired and wants to eat/sleep early.
• The player wants to join other people who already dropped or didn't participate in the first place and do something else instead of playing the - to him - inconsequential game (could be dinner, could be movies, could be a party, could be something very relaxing like a spa visit).
• Same as nr2, but the player has made the plans before making cut and the event is behind schedule.
• The player needs to catch a public transport option to get to his home for the night.

All of these are fine. A player has the right to decide whether he wants to spend his time playing a game. Thumbs up.

Full disclosure, in nearly every Regionals in which I have made cut, I've dropped. (Not the same as a concession, but depending on what prize I was chasing, it could be.)

Quote

• The player realizes that his opponent has only cardboard/standard stuff, or the player gets other clues that tell him his opponent likely never made cut before.

This one forks the ethical question into the realm of being nice. Assuming no other facts in evidence -- i.e., the concession isn't to favor anybody else, and ideally the conceding player doesn't even know how pairings will shake out -- I'm inclined to think this is fine (and to probably have a good impression of the player doing it). The only balances against it that I can think of are (1) somebody skilled may end up with a less skilled opponent, and thus have an easier path into the cut than he would otherwise, and (2) the concedee may want to, you know, play . Since (2) can't be discussed before the decision, and since the benefit of (1) is random, it's fine. Thumbs up.

As an aside, if you said, "I'm going to concede," and Player 2 looked visibly disappointed and said, "Aw, man, are you sure? I'd love the win, because it gets me great loot, but I'd rather play!" ... I assume you could change your mind without running afoul of the rules? But maybe that's an iffy assumption?

Quote

• The player thinks his opponent has an amazing list that should get some additional exposure by making cut. (Specific here: a large international event with more exposition).

... If the list is that amazing, wouldn't it be better to give the player the opportunity to prove it? Thumbs down.

Quote

• The player is passionate about the community's complaints when a faction doesn't make cut, knows by chance that his opponent is the only candidate to get into cut with a certain faction, and hopes he can prevent some complaints.

Just plain lame. Thumbs down.

Quote

• The opponent is in some form a minority in Xwing (child, woman, disabled, concealed carry guy others).

I mean ... seems like the soft bigotry of low expectations, to me. (And I say that as a bleeding heart liberal.) It's tough for me to imagine someone entering into a competitive tournament and being okay with succeeding because of their minority status.

Also ... is the woman super hot?

No, no, never mind. There are potentially balancing ethical factors that don't make this exactly a slam-dunk, but it's pretty close. Thumbs down.

Quote

• The opponent is a friend

Thumbs way down. On the other hand, as a friend you need to be willing to listen to him or her b!+ch and moan after you table him or her.

Quote

• The player suspects that his opponent is not as good due to the mov/wins and would like to add a worse player to the cut instead of a better one.
• The player realizes that this is an easy matchup that he would like to play in the cut if possible

It might surprise you, but I'm actually kinda torn on these. It's against my personal grain to do something like this, but I don't entirely disagree with the notion that tournament ladders have legitimate strategic considerations. I also think that to some extent this is self-balancing ... sure, this person might end up an easy win for you, but could also end up an easy win for your list's kryptonite list. It's tentatively thumbs up; I'd never do it, but nor would I relentlessly mock and shame someone who did.

Thanks!

18 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

... If the list is that amazing, wouldn't it be better to give the player the opportunity to prove it? Thumbs down.

Hm, let's say you have by chance the only hard counter of the cut? Or that the player by chance only lost to hard counters? I made this one up because of the clearly good intention, but it's the reason for the "if not downright unethical", so I agree on the verdict anyway.

15 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

It might surprise you, but I'm actually kinda torn on these.

I agree that these two are different from the other lame reasons. They still feel wrong to me, but maybe it is a legitimate part of the game.

The next questions get more hypothetical and possibly less interesting, but:
How do you tell them apart? Of course, if the player says something. But if he doesn't, is it only relevant for himself?

What if it's a mix of reasons? E.g., the player notices a) he'll have a great matchup, or the opponent is the only scum player to possibly make cut, or it's a friend. But he also b) really wants to take the break for any of the 4 good reasons. Does a) matter if b) is given?

The reason I bring that up is because @punkUser made a very interesting comment when testing the dice that he can't use them in good conscience anymore after learning their distribution. With the same reasoning, can a player ethically concede after one of the lame reasons crosses his mind?

I try to make it pretty straightforward to avoid questions of ethics. Do I want to play? Yes, I do. No, I don't, as long as I'm not hurting the other player's experience. But I'm in the salt mines anyway at premiere events.

Quote

Hm, let's say you have by chance the only hard counter of the cut? Or that the player by chance only lost to hard counters? I made this one up because of the clearly good intention, but it's the reason for the "if not downright unethical", so I agree on the verdict anyway.

Yeah, it just doesn't seem like the good reason is enough to outweigh the "legitimacy impact" on the tournament. There are a number of ways to illustrate a fantastic list ... I mean, think of the soapbox you have when you win?

Quote

I agree that these two are different from the other lame reasons. They still feel wrong to me, but maybe it is a legitimate part of the game.

That's exactly where I am.

Quote

The next questions get more hypothetical and possibly less interesting, but:
How do you tell them apart? Of course, if the player says something. But if he doesn't, is it only relevant for himself?

I've lost what you're referencing here.

Quote

What if it's a mix of reasons? E.g., the player notices a) he'll have a great matchup, or the opponent is the only scum player to possibly make cut, or it's a friend. But he also b) really wants to take the break for any of the 4 good reasons. Does a) matter if b) is given?

Ethically, if he's got a good reason (in good faith), that's all that matters, IMO. If he just doesn't feel like playing the game, sincerely doesn't, that's good enough. It's a game. If he's simply not having fun playing, or doesn't think he will, he can ethically not play.

Quote

The reason I bring that up is because @punkUser made a very interesting comment when testing the dice that he can't use them in good conscience anymore after learning their distribution. With the same reasoning, can a player ethically concede after one of the lame reasons crosses his mind?

I mean, you're touching on the idea of garbage rationalizations, but if it goes beyond that, into any good faith reason he doesn't want to play, he isn't forced to play because he happens to notice other reasons to not play that, if taken by themselves, would make his decision unethical.

There's plenty of research to suggest that highly intelligent people are less likely to be happy ... no reason to add "forced X-Wing" to the list, right?

1 hour ago, GreenDragoon said:

The player is tired and wants to eat/sleep early.

Are the cut games the same day (as in most HSTs from what I understand) or the following day? If the first and they still intend to play then they're trying for an extra edge that they shouldn't have over the other players which is unethical. If the second then it's not an issue.

1 hour ago, GreenDragoon said:

The player wants to join other people who already dropped or didn't participate in the first place and do something else instead of playing the - to him - inconsequential game

Full drop is fine.

1 hour ago, GreenDragoon said:

Same as nr2, but the player has made the plans before making cut and the event is behind schedule.

Full drop is fine.

1 hour ago, GreenDragoon said:

The player needs to catch a public transport option to get to his home for the night.

Full drop is fine.

1 hour ago, GreenDragoon said:

The player realizes that his opponent has only cardboard/standard stuff, or the player gets other clues that tell him his opponent likely never made cut before

Iffy, but not by much. Just being a "nice guy" is fine if that is the only intention. Trying to stack the cut with bad players is not.

1 hour ago, GreenDragoon said:

The player thinks his opponent has an amazing list that should get some additional exposure by making cut  .

Iffy, but not by much. Just being a "nice guy" is fine if that is the only intention. Trying to stack the cut with bad players is not.

1 hour ago, GreenDragoon said:

The player is passionate about the community's complaints when a faction doesn't make cut, knows by chance that his opponent is the only candidate to get into cut with a certain faction, and hopes he can prevent some complaints.

🤨 This can be re-written as "Sick of people ******* about how bad a faction is and wants something to point to so they will shut up about it." and still be the exact same unethical goal. They're trying to artificially alter faction statistics.

1 hour ago, GreenDragoon said:

The opponent is in some form a minority in Xwing (child, woman, disabled, concealed carry guy others).

What is the motivation? This describes both someone being an *** and someone trying to "help out"... Both are someone being a bit dense.

1 hour ago, GreenDragoon said:

The opponent is a friend

Iffy, but not by much. Just being a "nice guy" is fine if that is the only intention. Trying to stack the cut with bad players is not.

1 hour ago, GreenDragoon said:

The player suspects that his opponent is not as good due to the mov/wins and would like to add a worse player to the cut instead of a better one.

Straight up unethical.

1 hour ago, GreenDragoon said:

The player realizes that this is an easy matchup that he would like to play in the cut if possible

Straight up unethical.

4 hours ago, JJ48 said:

I have to wonder if the game would be as popular as it is if the models weren't pre-painted. I know some people really like painting their own models, but I know I, for one, wouldn't have even picked up the game if I had to paint every model myself.

I would never have played X-Wing, or D&D Miniatures, or Wings of Glory, if the miniatures were unpainted. (And I would be significantly richer today.) It's pretty much impossible to overstate how little interest I have in painting miniatures.