1 hour ago, Killerardvark said:Thanks! Interesting, though I can't get the visual of Gronk spiking a football out of my head when I read that.
Well you've got me picturing a Gonk droid playing football now and I'm disappointed because I can't find any images of that online
Personally. I say that it is something i would do. period. To me going into a tourney, you are assumed to try to win every game.
BUT, thats my view. Your view might be different and the views of your opponent, other players and judges may be different.
I think you need to address your games as individual games without looking ahead to future games and possible opponents and such.
1 hour ago, EVIL INC said:Personally. I say that it is something i would do. period. To me going into a tourney, you are assumed to try to win every game.
BUT, thats my view. Your view might be different and the views of your opponent, other players and judges may be different.
I think you need to address your games as individual games without looking ahead to future games and possible opponents and such.
Agreed. Doing other than what you outline is not playing the match in front of you, but trying to play the tournament's system instead.
So I just want to get the situation straight, If the players who went 4-0 wins his last round he makes it harder for himself in the cut but if he loses then it benefits him, and most here want to shame that person into playing to win that game making it harder for themselves in the cut?
What ever happened to making your own destiny? for both the player in question as well as those on the bubble. If you don’t want to have to have your tournament hopes hinge on other people's games, then win enough that you don’t have to.
I don’t really see an issue with various strategies, I've seen enough people "Submarine" (Lose your first round to play theoretically easier rounds the rest of the tournament) in various other games that I believe people might be doing it deliberately. Having a fluid strategy for a whole event is just as important as having a strategy for any individual game or particular matchup.
6 hours ago, jagsba said:I would call it in a heartbeat. And I would ruthlessly shame and mock anybody who did it at any event I attended or judged. (NOTE: I'm 6'5", well over 300 pounds, and built like a truck. Ain't nobody going to do anything but meekly accept it from me. I can't globally recommend it, I guess.)
While I understand your preference I don’t think verbally and emotionally abusing someone under what appears to be a very thinly veiled threat of physical presence, regardless of whether you are being facetious or not, is appropriate given that this discussion is about ethics.
2 minutes ago, Mace Windu said:So I just want to get the situation straight, If the players who went 4-0 wins his last round he makes it harder for himself in the cut but if he loses then it benefits him, and most here want to shame that person into playing to win that game making it harder for themselves in the cut?
What ever happened to making your own destiny? for both the player in question as well as those on the bubble. If you don’t want to have to have your tournament hopes hinge on other people's games, then win enough that you don’t have to.
I don’t really see an issue with various strategies, I've seen enough people "Submarine" (Lose your first round to play theoretically easier rounds the rest of the tournament) in various other games that I believe people might be doing it deliberately. Having a fluid strategy for a whole event is just as important as having a strategy for any individual game or particular matchup.
While I understand your preference I don’t think verbally and emotionally abusing someone under what appears to be a very thinly veiled threat of physical presence, regardless of whether you are being facetious or not, is appropriate given that this discussion is about ethics.
🤨 If they do what you describe, they've stopped playing XWM and are instead playing the tournament's advancement system with an XWM minigame... Please, read these over fully then think about if you really want to ignore FFG OP's rules because you think it should be "valid" to play as you describe.
9 hours ago, Hiemfire said:You're arguing that the Collusion rules are pointless. Take it up with Organized Play...
Organized Play has already acknowledged that the way the Collusion rules are written does not accurately define what they would consider Collusion. What they have now is not remotely enforceable.
6 hours ago, jagsba said:I would call it in a heartbeat. And I would ruthlessly shame and mock anybody who did it at any event I attended or judged. (NOTE: I'm 6'5", well over 300 pounds, and built like a truck. Ain't nobody going to do anything but meekly accept it from me. I can't globally recommend it, I guess.)
If you don't wanna @#$%in' play X-Wing, don't @#$%in' play X-Wing. Jesus @#$%'in Christ.
And if they didn't accept it meekly you would do what exactly?
Assault someone?
We are talking about ethics here and this is the type of stuff you want to post, physically intimidating people at an event?
Edited by ScottieATFIm not trying to force anyone to do anything they do not want to do or shame them into it.
I will say that I would think less of them because , to me, it IS unethical using shenanigans to gain an advantage that other players do not have.
But how I feel about that player is not relevant. i'm just an old fart they do not know and will never meet and who has no part in that tourney. Regardless of what people post in an online forum, they will make their own decisions based on their own conscience.
9 minutes ago, ScottieATF said:And if they didn't accept it meekly you would do what exactly?
Assault someone?
We are talking about ethics here and this is the type of stuff you want to post, physically intimidating people at an event?
I' 6'11" 250 lbs. I would never consider using my size to intimidate anyone in a tournament unless they were the one creating a disturbance. If you see someone doing it, talk to the judges, use your phone to record anything you can as evidence, but ultimately, it is not you/or my call and the behavior you describe is just as unethical as what the OP is discussing and is far more likely to create hard feelings/cause damage. Besides, as a tip with no offence intended, if you resot to that any time something happens you do not like, eventually it will catch up with you....
I agree with the sentiment, but do not approve of the suggested means of addressing it.
Edited by EVIL INC
8 minutes ago, ScottieATF said:And if they didn't accept it meekly you would do what exactly?
Assault someone?
We are talking about ethics here and this is the type of stuff you want to post, physically intimidating people at an event?
🤨 They're poking fun at @Jeff Wilder for something they wrote a few months back. (This part: " (NOTE: I'm 6'5", well over 300 pounds, and built like a truck. Ain't nobody going to do anything but meekly accept it from me. I can't globally recommend it, I guess.) ") It's borderline become a meme amongst the Krayts… Much like kids and **** jokes they rarely let the opportunity slide to spout it...
Ahh. I didnt realize that. I've seen people do just that sort of thing at 40k tourneys and watched them get shut down,shut them down myself. lol
44 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:🤨 If they do what you describe, they've stopped playing XWM and are instead playing the tournament's advancement system with an XWM minigame... Please, read these over fully then think about if you really want to ignore FFG OP's rules because you think it should be "valid" to play as you describe.
I can only assume you are referencing this section of the Floor Rules:
G. Cheating – Disqualification
If a player attempts to gain advantage in the tournament by intentionally breaking a rule, lying to
tournament leaders, intentionally altering or misreporting match results, or somehow abusing any
other part of the system for their own benefit, they are guilty of cheating. Players attend FFG
Organized Play events in order to enjoy playing the games they love with like-minded
individuals. There are few things more upsetting to a player than having their efforts in a
tournament be invalidated by someone who reached a similar or better position through
exploitation and dishonesty.
Reading that in isolation I could understand your stance, however the floor rules also say:
Please note that concession, in and of itself, is not collusion. Players are allowed to concede a
game at any time before the end of the game, so long as there was no discussion or solicitation
involved.
Note that you don’t have to be losing to concede a game either.
So basically there is a significant direct conflict in the floor rules regarding this situation.
34 minutes ago, Mace Windu said:I can only assume you are referencing this section of the Floor Rules:
G. Cheating – DisqualificationIf a player attempts to gain advantage in the tournament by intentionally breaking a rule, lying to
tournament leaders, intentionally altering or misreporting match results, or somehow abusing any
other part of the system for their own benefit, they are guilty of cheating. Players attend FFG
Organized Play events in order to enjoy playing the games they love with like-minded
individuals. There are few things more upsetting to a player than having their efforts in a
tournament be invalidated by someone who reached a similar or better position through
exploitation and dishonesty.
Reading that in isolation I could understand your stance, however the floor rules also say:
Please note that concession, in and of itself, is not collusion. Players are allowed to concede a
game at any time before the end of the game, so long as there was no discussion or solicitation
involved.
Note that you don’t have to be losing to concede a game either.
So basically there is a significant direct conflict in the floor rules regarding this situation.
my view on that....
conceding a game that you have essentially won is intentionally altering a match result. Also abusing part of the system for their benefit.
I feel that the 2nd part is essentially put in to save time for players who feel that conceding a game they have lost would not change the result. That does not interfere with the first part. But when it actually alters a result of the game, I feel it brings in the first part.
That is how I would call it if I were a judge. I feel that if it becomes an issue (if people start playing the system instead of the game), a rewording of the second would put a stop to it. For example..... "Players are allowed to concede a game they are losing at any time before the end of the game, so long as there was no discussion or solicitation involved." I feel that this is what was intended and writers assumed it would be taken that way.
Edited by EVIL INCHere's a similar situation in terms of ethics, just not affecting any possible cut (because there wasn't one), but did manipulate the scoring system and final standings in an event.
Small, 3 round event. I won my first game, then got paired down to face my son (age 10 at the time).
I flew a fully healthy Y-wing off the table on purpose and then fudged a dice roll so my Wedge failed to kill his Vader. This gave him a victory which he was very pleased about, and encouraged him to attend more events rather than feeling discouraged about his flying.
Someone else finished last instead of him. I finished lower than I might have, facing a weaker player in round 3 than I 'should' have played.
Was that ethical?
36 minutes ago, Gilarius said:Here's a similar situation in terms of ethics, just not affecting any possible cut (because there wasn't one), but did manipulate the scoring system and final standings in an event.
Small, 3 round event. I won my first game, then got paired down to face my son (age 10 at the time).
I flew a fully healthy Y-wing off the table on purpose and then fudged a dice roll so my Wedge failed to kill his Vader. This gave him a victory which he was very pleased about, and encouraged him to attend more events rather than feeling discouraged about his flying.
Someone else finished last instead of him. I finished lower than I might have, facing a weaker player in round 3 than I 'should' have played.
Was that ethical?
Ethical no, you didn't play the game but instead set it up so your son would succeed despite their lack of experience.
Writing that I feel I need to explain. Ethical/Unethical, Legal/Illegal, and Right/Wrong are 3 separate qualifier sets when it comes to decisions and actions. It is possible to do the right thing while having it be both unethical and illegal.
I don't think you did something wrong by letting your kid win that match though others may disagree. It doesn't change that it was unethical and, under the current rules, of questionable legality.
Edited by Hiemfire37 minutes ago, Gilarius said:Here's a similar situation in terms of ethics, just not affecting any possible cut (because there wasn't one), but did manipulate the scoring system and final standings in an event.
Small, 3 round event. I won my first game, then got paired down to face my son (age 10 at the time).
I flew a fully healthy Y-wing off the table on purpose and then fudged a dice roll so my Wedge failed to kill his Vader. This gave him a victory which he was very pleased about, and encouraged him to attend more events rather than feeling discouraged about his flying.
Someone else finished last instead of him. I finished lower than I might have, facing a weaker player in round 3 than I 'should' have played.
Was that ethical?
This becomes a whole new discussion. I feel it becomes walking the line between encouragement and teaching your child how to deal with losses in a competative environment.
As for ethics, technically I would have to say no. But as a parent I can see myself easily doing something similar. Especially if it's a more casual, smaller event.
Oh look, it's the intentional draw discussion all over again.
2.0, where everything has changed yet nothing has changed.
10/10 would fly again.
3 hours ago, Bort said:This becomes a whole new discussion. I feel it becomes walking the line between encouragement and teaching your child how to deal with losses in a competative environment.
As for ethics, technically I would have to say no. But as a parent I can see myself easily doing something similar. Especially if it's a more casual, smaller event.
3 hours ago, Hiemfire said:Ethical no, you didn't play the game but instead set it up so your son would succeed despite their lack of experience.
Writing that I feel I need to explain. Ethical/Unethical, Legal/Illegal, and Right/Wrong are 3 separate qualifier sets when it comes to decisions and actions. It is possible to do the right thing while having it be both unethical and illegal.
I don't think you did something wrong by letting your kid win that match though others may disagree. It doesn't change that it was unethical and, under the current rules, of questionable legality.
Thank you both. I agree with you - it was unethical, and it's nice to get it off my chest and admit my guilt. It's also useful to realise that it was still the 'right' thing to do. He'd already learned how to cope with losing, having failed to win any games in 3 events in a row (although he had won casual games against adults), but beating me for the first time was a major milestone and led him towards a greater sense of belief in his ability.
His flying has improved a lot since then. Last game we played, also in a small event, I scraped a victory when my Serissu was worth more points than his Nashtah Pup. The previous event, he finished above me in the standings for the first time, including beating someone who'd beaten me.
4 hours ago, Gilarius said:Small, 3 round event.
the integrity of small 3 round local events must be preserved
6 hours ago, EVIL INC said:conceding a game that you have essentially won is intentionally altering a match result. Also abusing part of the system for their benefit.
I really continue to fail to understand the problem with people conceding at any time for any reason
like whats the alternative here? you force people to try ? a judge stands over the table and says "no, you can't just line up a joust, no - stop that, you can't dial a 4k over that debris, no you can't barrel roll as every action"?
We are playing a game about imaginary space ship pilots killing each other. Think about that while you argue ethics and morals.
Ill stop not-contributing with that one I promise.
4 hours ago, svelok said:the integrity of small 3 round local events must be preserved
I really continue to fail to understand the problem with people conceding at any time for any reason
like whats the alternative here? you force people to try ? a judge stands over the table and says "no, you can't just line up a joust, no - stop that, you can't dial a 4k over that debris, no you can't barrel roll as every action"?
Your deliberately making it something more than it is. Notice that we are talking about our private views (I put in specific qualifiers to point that out). if you are that upset over how random people you dont know on the internet feel, than that shows that the ethics of it bothers you yourself. Salving a guilty conscience. But i could be wrong on that as i only spent a few years as a professional counselor.
in my view, you should not HAVE to force people to try. that is something that should be a given.
I think Heimfire put it rather well when saying there are different sets of qualifiers...legal/illegal, ethical/unethical and right/wrong. This whole conversation reminds me of discussions of the different alignments in D&D lol.
How different members here would handle the situation is irrelevant. What we would do does not matter. what matters is the decision of the judges in any given event as they are the ones whose word count. if you go online to ask a question, ya gotta expect answers that you do not agree with. You can accept that not everyone thinks like you and make your decision or you can try to argue with them trying to change their minds. The latter is a waste of time and can only serve to create hard feelings with folks who likely agree with you on other items and could be great resources. I know that here, I need resources just as i know I could be one if they have questions about other games. different strokes for different folks and all that.
Edited by EVIL INCThis is a great example of the huge difference between what's ethical and what's legal.
IMO, falsifying a match result to artificially inflate another player's record and get them into the cut is unethical, because now another player gets bumped out of the cut based on the machinations of a 3rd party that was completely out of their control and they just weren't lucky enough to get paired up with the Santa Clause player.
But because you framed it as a concession and were smart about not discussing your motives with your opponent, you are perfectly within the letter of the law and it's very unlikely that FFG could ever make a functioning set of rules that makes what you did in the way that you did it illegal.
I will also say that had you, at the start of the round, decided that you just didn't want to play out that round and conceded knowing that you were locked for the cut, that would have been ethical. But once you went down the route of basically playing out the entire match and then altering the results through a concession it became a different scenario.
But, you might say, aren't the results exactly the same? How can one be ethical and the other not when they both lead to the same outcome? Well this is when we get into ethical theories of consequentialism be deontologism. Consider a player flipping up their opponents Soontir dial when they go to activate their TIE swarm. In one scenario they mutter "OK, Academy Pilot", mistaking the same colored dials that had all foolishly been put on the play area instead of next to their pilot cards. In another scenario they mutter "I wonder where Soontir's going" before flipping soontirs dial. But either way, the result is the same, the swarm player now has a huge information advantage that will inform their barrel roll choices.
But we don't treat these actions the same just because they have the same outcome, one was a mistake that will be punished with a stern warning and some penalty points, the other is straight up cheating punishable by a DQ. The punishments are different because the motivation of the action changes the ethical nature of that action. That is deontological ethics. Consequentialist ethics would treat both actions the same since the both had the same outcome regardless of intent and means. I don't subscribe to consequentialist ethics.
20 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:How do you ever tell anyone off, by this logic?
What if someone punches someone else, is it OK to criticise their behaviour then? What if they steal someone's models or cards, or change a dial after the end of planning, or move a ship when their opponent's not looking?
Everything you listed is illegal either by law or by game rules. That's very different then disagreeing with the morals or ethics of a legal thing.
And can we not have civil conversations regarding disagreements? Aggressive shame and intimidation as suggested in multiple comments in this thread are things that concern me greatly. Seems to be a pattern in the world these days and I really don't like it, but that's a whole long tangent that would likely get this thread locked.
And collusion is against the game rules too. Exactly what qualifies is certainly up for debate, though.
Not to mention that legality and morality do not necessarily intersect, in x wing/tournaments or in law. The whole intentional draw fiasco a couple of years ago was a problem specifically because it was both clearly legal and clearly unethical/anticompetitive.
FWIW, I fully support having civil conversations about disagreements at this kind of level of conversation, but there does come a time when you have to stop conversing civilly and start acting, even if that might be civil and polite action - for instance, as noted above, if you're conceding for good reason, and your opponent for some reason doesn't want you to, then leave, politely but firmly.
13 hours ago, Hiemfire said:🤨 They're poking fun at @Jeff Wilder for something they wrote a few months back. (This part: " (NOTE: I'm 6'5", well over 300 pounds, and built like a truck. Ain't nobody going to do anything but meekly accept it from me. I can't globally recommend it, I guess.) ") It's borderline become a meme amongst the Krayts… Much like kids and **** jokes they rarely let the opportunity slide to spout it...
this is what happens when people try to Krayt outside the Krayt thread