22 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

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.

I think we were acting on the precipice that there was no collusion. This person saw the other player's record by some means and made the tactical decision to concede. In that case it was legal, tactically sound, and ethically debatable. If there were collusion, then done, cut and dry, not allowed.

The intentional draw "fiasco" was perfectly legal and I'd say it's still up for debate on if it was unethical. People certainly didn't like it so they came up with a better solution. Anticompetitive? Not for those who do it. I'd say it's more competitive as it is working within the rules to achieve the goal of winning the tournament. The idea that walking into the last game you know you don't have a chance certainly sucked. That's true for many people in a tournament though. That rule just moved the bar of "impossible" much higher in the ranks.

Finally, civil and polite action. That's kinda the point. Many of the suggestions I've seen in this thread are neither civil nor polite.

5 minutes ago, Killerardvark said:

goal of winning the tournament

That is where it falls down. The individual matches are supposed to be the focus, not the venue.

Just now, Hiemfire said:

That is where it falls down. The individual matches are supposed to be the focus, not the venue.

Eh, in the higher competitive environment I very much disagree.

18 minutes ago, Killerardvark said:

Eh, in the higher competitive environment I very much disagree.

Then you're not playing X-Wing, you're playing a statistics game with an X-Wing minigame...

4 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

Then you're not playing X-Wing, you're playing a statistics game with an X-Wing minigame...

"From a certain point of view..." - Obi-Wan

Basic sportsmanship calls for playing the game as it's intended to be played to the relative best of your ability leading to a fair and genuine outcome.

The fact that people choose to be unsportsmanlike for personal benefit for the sole reason of being able to and being personally fine with it is something that they should look deep within themselves about, especially because we're playing a ****ing plastic toy spaceships game. Looking at you, @Mace Windu .

Playing X-Wing is nobody's profession. It is nobody's job, and nobody is counting on it for anything other than personal enjoyment derived via miniatures moneypit. Play the darn game, choose a strategy that ends it quickly but isn't throwing, and remember that you're playing a Star Wars pewpew game.

5 hours ago, RampancyTW said:

Basic sportsmanship calls for playing the game as it's intended to be played to the relative best of your ability leading to a fair and genuine outcome.

The fact that people choose to be unsportsmanlike for personal benefit for the sole reason of being able to and being personally fine with it is something that they should look deep within themselves about, especially because we're playing a ****ing plastic toy spaceships game. Looking at you, @Mace Windu .

Playing X-Wing is nobody's profession. It is nobody's job, and nobody is counting on it for anything other than personal enjoyment derived via miniatures moneypit. Play the darn game, choose a strategy that ends it quickly but isn't throwing, and remember that you're playing a Star Wars pewpew game.

I'm not quite sure why you felt the need to call me out specifically on this one, but seeing as you have I guess Ill respond.

My first post simply clarified that there are people who believe that if you don’t play the game the same way that they think you should that is grounds for shaming and insulting them, neither of which I agree with as I detest bullies in any form and consider it highly hypocritical of anyone spouting the "sportsmanship" banner.

My second post was simply pointing out a contradiction in the rules, nothing more.

For the record I would never do any of what is being discussed here myself, I was simply attempting to discuss the other side of the coin from an ethics standpoint so that both sides of the discussion can be heard.

Yes you are right that we are all playing with plastic spaceships, but that doesn’t mean you get you insult people you don’t agree with.

8 minutes ago, Mace Windu said:

I'm not quite sure why you felt the need to call me out specifically on this one, but seeing as you have I guess Ill respond.

My first post simply clarified that there are people who believe that if you don’t play the game the same way that they think you should that is grounds for shaming and insulting them, neither of which I agree with as I detest bullies in any form and consider it highly hypocritical of anyone spouting the "sportsmanship" banner.

My second post was simply pointing out a contradiction in the rules, nothing more.

For the record I would never do any of what is being discussed here myself, I was simply attempting to discuss the other side of the coin from an ethics standpoint so that both sides of the discussion can be heard.

Yes you are right that we are all playing with plastic spaceships, but that doesn’t mean you get you insult people you don’t agree with.

My apologies, I'm exhausted and went a little hard out the gate

I mostly took issue with

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? 

and

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.

Mentally I merged you with other posters who have argued in the past from some heavy WAAC mentalities, which upon re-reading is not even close to what you were going for. I would, however, hope that a community "shames" in the sense of calling out and actively discouraging anti-sportsmanlike behavior in a tournament setting, and the idea of avoiding playing the game everyone showed up to play in favor of gaming the system strikes me as highly unsporting. Personal call-outs are A-OK, personal attacks and insults are not.

1 hour ago, RampancyTW said:

Mentally I merged you with other posters who have argued in the past from some heavy WAAC mentalities, which upon re-reading is not even close to what you were going for. I would, however, hope that a community "shames" in the sense of calling out and actively discouraging anti-sportsmanlike behavior in a tournament setting, and the idea of avoiding playing the game everyone showed up to play in favor of gaming the system strikes me as highly unsporting. Personal call-outs are A-OK, personal attacks and insults are not. 

I think we can all agree that unsportsmanlike behaviour should be discouraged where possible.

The reality is what we have been discussing Is fairly unlikely to happen, that’s not to say it hasn’t happened or won't happen in the future, but it would be at the highest level competitive events and certainly shouldn't be entertained by anyone as a feasible strategy at your league night or casual store tournament and would be fair enough to respectfully discuss the situation with the player at the time should it arise.

Also at the end of the day the rules are written in such a way that the TO makes the final call, if you have a judge that is likely to have you turfed out of the event for strategic concession then best to play the game to the best of your ability and hope that Karma is on your side for next round pairings to fall in your favour.

Keep in mind, we are not talking about the "santa claus player" scenario. That was only a side example. The topic at hand is a single person watching the overall scores of the entire tournament figuring out who will be playing who based on who wins which games and playing the system by artificially altering game results for their personal benefit. Not a father throwing a game so that their son can say they did not come in dead last.

23 hours ago, Hiemfire said:

Then you're not playing X-Wing, you're playing a statistics game with an X-Wing minigame...

I think this gets into the territory of what is and what ought. I think looking at what a tournament effectively is, your sarcastic description is actually pretty accurate. Otherwise players shouldn't be allowed to see what their current standings or tie breakers are or even tell other players their records.

21 minutes ago, Tvboy said:

I think this gets into the territory of what is and what ought. I think looking at what a tournament effectively is, your sarcastic description is actually pretty accurate. Otherwise players shouldn't be allowed to see what their current standings or tie breakers are or even tell other players their records.

There is something to be said about not informing players about standings, scores, and tie breakers. The benefit is that they continue to play hard throughout the whole event not knowing exactly where they stand (unless they are undefeated and know the swiss triangle math). The downside being that mistakes in scores and points aren't caught and corrected the round they happen. Just at gencon, someone got 2000 MOV in a round.

Super competitive players will always want to know exactly what they have to do to get to the next round. Just look at the NFL as they get to the final 3 games of the season. Commentators will talk forever about what exactly has to happen for team X to make the playoffs.

Should we stifle the hyper competitiveness of a tournament because the core of our event is a boardgame designed for entertainment? It's an interesting discussion, and I think much of that stems from the fact that casuals can participate in the same events as hyper competitive players. Nobody's telling the NFL that the super bowl isn't a big deal because they're just tossing a toy ball around.

Someone commented that this is nobody's livelihood or business. I'd disagree. The competitive nature is a business for Dion. I'm sure he gets more viewers at the final tables than the early ones. Many players sell prizes to pay for their hotel, food, and travel costs for conventions they wouldn't be able to go to otherwise. Does that make it ok for them to encourage the most competitively beneficial tactics possible? Definitely up for debate. My point is just that dismissing this as "no big deal, we're just pushing plastic spaceships around" is a bit shortsighted.

Yeah, sorry. No sympathy here for players who have no need for their prizes selling them to pay for more trips to get more prizes.

As someone pointed out in another thread about fair play, we don't decide if it is legal, the judges do. The rules don't specifically state that you cannot concede to improve your strength of schedule, help another player or to improve your child's fun at an event, but it is in an area that is open to a judge's interpretation (or organizer or marshal). Unsportsmanlike behavior is deliberately broad because there is no way to account for every situation.

You are allowed to concede a game at any time with exceptions. If you concede because you need a break it is unlikely that a judge would consider it unsportsmanlike, but they could. While it may not be intentional, giving someone a total win can, at times, dramatically skew results. Sportsmanship is easier to judge from the injured party's side. Imagine if all you needed to make the next round was for this one guy to lose one game, and he just got matched with a killer player, then the killer player concedes to go get a sandwich.

Conceding or throwing to help a friend, probably will get you sanctioned. Your ten year old? Unless your ten year old made it to Hyperspace nationals, it would take a harsh judge to sanction you, but be aware, someone else may have a ten year old in the game too.

Conceding or throwing for strength of schedule, without collusion cause we know collusion is out, is debatable but I would lean strongly towards it is bad. Again, look at it as the guy who got bumped. How would you feel if someone else got into the next round because their last opponent thought they'd be easier to face again?

A lot of sportsmanship is just about looking at it from the other side.

On 8/6/2019 at 12:19 PM, Killerardvark said:

Small anecdote, I did this once in a fantasy football league. I was at a particular rank and facing an easy win for the week. If I won, I would be stuck facing a guy in the first round of playoffs and he had a running back that was on a hot streak. I benched all of my players and took the loss. The player I mentioned smashed people all the way to the final game where I finally had to face him. Fortunately for me, his running back was on a team that had playoffs locked and they benched him so I won the season. That guy in my league should really message the NFL and complain that they didn't play as hard as they could!

Yeah, we had someone do that in our Fantasy league about 15 years ago. Still talked about how much of a **** move it was. Winning at all costs in the NFL is expected. It is professional football not friendly game football. If someone chopped blocked on a friendly game of football to win at all cost, they probably be facing jail time. Something to think about.

5 hours ago, Killerardvark said:

Someone commented that this is nobody's livelihood or business. I'd disagree. The competitive nature is a business for Dion. I'm sure he gets more viewers at the final tables than the early ones. Many players sell prizes to pay for their hotel, food, and travel costs for conventions they wouldn't be able to go to otherwise. Does that make it ok for them to encourage the most competitively beneficial tactics possible? Definitely up for debate. My point is just that dismissing this as "no big deal, we're just pushing plastic spaceships around" is a bit shortsighted.

That was me. Of course there are financial incentives, and people make some amount of money off of streaming and/or producing content. Nobody, however, is making a living or even meaningful amount of money by deliberately not playing the game and gaming the system instead.

Actually, someone earlier copied and pasted 2 sections of the rules where to the uneducated, it would appear that they disagreed with one another. The first part said that it was against the rules to artificially alter results of games. This conceding when you have the game won already is doing just that. The second part said that conceding a game so long as there is no collusion between the two players is ok. Conceding a game you have already essentially lost fits this bill.

The key is, you have to satisfy BOTH sections. I had this situation in a job a while back where unethical business owners would try to pull fast ones such as this. To those not in the U.S. forgive me. Day care centers for children are watched by a few different agencies and the different agencies have different requirements. I worked for one agency and the folks running the place would break one of our rules because the rules of the other allowed it. Playing the game of always following the lesser or easier rule in every instance. I would have to explain to them that they always had to follow the STRICTER of the two rules because they needed permits and licences from BOTH agencies to operate their business. If the followed the easier rule for the other agency in a situation and it did not meet our standards,I would write them up for it and publish it possibly pulling their permit where they would have to shut their doors. Likewise, in the situations where our rules were easier and the other agency were stricter, if the followed our rule but not the other, the other agency would pull their licence and the doors would be shut.

I feel that this situation is like that where BOTH instances in the rules need to be followed and you should not be allowed to play one off against the other. Of course, that is just my view and experience.

Likewise with the ultra competitive players. If you are that good, you will win every game regardless of who you play. An ultra competitive player would be ashamed that they had to pull shenanigans to win top prize preferring to do it by being the better player of the game rather than by playing the system. To those who claim to do it to pay for rooms and whatnot, simple thing is, there are a LOT of things I want to do and places I want to go but I do not because I cant afford to. What the suggestion here is of intending on using winnings to pay for it is no different than a person going to Vegas for a week of gambling with no money to fund it intending on using winnings to pay for it after the fact. Counting cards and saying that there is no sign at the door telling you you are not allowed to use math while inside will not stop them from breaking your leg if you get busted for it. Now will the judges at a tourney break your leg? I highly doubt it. Would they disqualify you you? I dont know because all are different. I can only say for sure that if I were a judge and busted you for it, I would because to me, it does not meet the FULL requirement of the rules.

Another personal anecdote. I faced many instances in warhammer 40k tournaments where if I had thrown a game I could have won the overall tournament by using the thrown game to ensure an easy win in a following round.... I did not because although I was super competative that would not have been honest and left a bad taste in my mouth. It allowed the better players to win and I was still able to pull in a regular 3rd place in almost every tournament, sometimes lower, sometimes higher by being a good player who excelled at the hobby aspect (painting/basing and such). Was quite content with that as it allowed others to respect me for being an honest good sport, for being a good player and for being great at the overall hobby.

3 hours ago, Dr Moneypants said:

Yeah, sorry. No sympathy here for players who have no need for their prizes selling them to pay for more trips to get more prizes.

Who cares if people sell their prizes? Some people can’t make it to events because of life, and some have the time and not the money to go to them so they sell their prizes. Everyone benefits.

3 hours ago, Dr Moneypants said:

Yeah, sorry. No sympathy here for players who have no need for their prizes selling them to pay for more trips to get more prizes.

Username checks out. Not all of us have pants made of money

Folks selling prizes is a totally different conversation that is not even remotely related to this topic.

39 minutes ago, gadwag said:

Username checks out. Not all of us have pants made of money

Have you tried buying more money?

On 8/7/2019 at 1:55 PM, Hiemfire said:

Then you're not playing X-Wing, you're playing a statistics game with an X-Wing minigame...

Ummmm...wait...what? That's... that's by definition just the difference between a casual March with no continuity and a tournament, right?

Is it unethical to not want to fly a tie Swarm because you think setting all those dials all day could be mentally tiring?

7 minutes ago, Ablazoned said:

Ummmm...wait...what? That's... that's by definition just the difference between a casual March with no continuity and a tournament, right?

Is it unethical to not want to fly a tie Swarm because you think setting all those dials all day could be mentally tiring?

That's not what the discussion was about. It was focused conceding with the intention of altering who is in the cut to benefit someone, to gain an edge not availible to others in the cut, or to artificially change someone's standings in swiss.

6 hours ago, Dr Moneypants said:

Yeah, sorry. No sympathy here for players who have no need for their prizes selling them to pay for more trips to get more prizes.

What about people who want to play in more tournaments and can do so by redistributing the prizes they do not want to people who do want the prizes but cannot go to the tournament?