6 hours ago, Patrick_patrick said:

we are one page. I don't think you are paying attention or have me confused with someone else. but you have been proven wrong and that is all that matters. calling me a troll is funny since I literally had to show you a well known judge and exposed you for playing a victim. I would not be classified as a troll but actually informing you of facts.

Edit: also you never used the word troll in any of the posts between you and I. Proven wrong again. Man it hurts to be this good.

Actually, i have not been proven wrong at all. my views...

1. That i personally view that specific instance as unethical. That is an opinion. Most have shared it. There are a few of you who are spam trolling trying to upset me (the others who agree just backed out when they saw the behavior of the trolls, but i have never feared you. You obviously have a differing opinion but that is not proving me wrong.

2. That it is not up to random forum members to decide whether it is against the rules or not You guys (i say that because there are a few) are confusing rules and ethics and have gotten things all garbled. BUT as to whether or not it is legal, should be up to the judges of the tournament that you playing at. As the rules have such loopholes and are not always worded properly, there are interpretations of definitions and intents that different judges can interpret different ways. You guys are saying that one judge among the many's thoughts on it should be the law across every tournament big and small and screw the judges at the individual tournaments thoughts on the matter. You have yet to prove me wrong on that as well. Can you provide the documentation that proves this? There are many forums across the internet with thousands of members....Sorry, but I'm sticking with the "It is up to the judges of the event" statement.

3. That if a player is going into a tournament with this specific plan of playing the system instead of the game in mind, they should discuss it with the TO and judges beforehand to see if they will allow it. This is also an opinion. To me, that would be common sense. As there might be a judge there would disallow it and disqualify you. But as it is opinion there are different but no wrong ones in this situation.

You posted 2 pictures of a guy saying thats who he is. I could post 2 pictures of George Washington with little red squiggly arrows pointing to him with my name and you should believe that it is me? How does that one tv commercial go... "I'm a french model". You say he is, he says he is, ****, it could be trump taking a break from twitter for all I know...or care. until I am at an event and he walks up to me with a judge shirt on and escorts me out disqualifying me because I have a stricter sense of ethics in a forum online, I will never know for sure.

With maturity comes the knowledge that you never know it all. There is always something more to learn. I would never be so bigoted as to lump all old or young or black or white or jewish or whatever other group together slapping a bigoted stereotype onto them. There is always something to learn and when you stop trying to learn, you stagnate. an immature person will flame and troll and bully a person online as a few of you are doing because they hold a different opinion than yourself. That behavior is a statement. by treating them in such a manner you are telling them that they do not have the right to their differing opinion. if you felt they did have a right to it, you would have just said "Huhn, I disagree and here is why i feel the way I do" instead of hounding them through what is it now... 9 pages.

First, I want to make this perfectly clear as this has been my statement from the beginning and i'm sorry for any misinterpretation that may have been received throughout the conversation, the ethics of any specific scenario are debatable and many people have different opinions regarding it. I don't fault anyone for their opinion.

Regarding judges, every judge should strive to adhere to the rule set as much as possible. In the rules there are gray areas where things aren't perfectly clear. Each judge should be ready to handle those situations on their own however they interpret it. I strive to inform people what they will encounter from a judge at large FFG sanctioned events (worlds, nationals, continentals, system opens, etc.) as I work with a group of judges that if you go to one of these events there's a high chance one of us will be the marshal, head judge, and/or majority of the judges. We spend our free time discussing these gray areas and have even put a good few of them into our Unofficial Community Rules Supplement which we encourage other judges to use, because consistency if good for players, but make it clear that it is unofficial and every judge should make up their own mind. So I completely agree, "it is up to the judges of the event".

1 minute ago, Killerardvark said:

and  i'm sorry for any misinterpretation  that may have been received throughout the conversat  io  n

Just here to point out that your position was perfectly clear throughout the thread because you repeatedly stated it.

I'd also like to advertise the ignore function once more because it greatly improves the forum.

Most forums have an ignore button. I never use it because the antics of trolls such as yourself are too entertaining to miss. They are a mild diversion for those of us who act in a more mature fashion. Besides, you may realize your behavior is unacceptable and start to add meaningfully and we would miss that as well.

Aarvark. Thank you for clarifying yourself as you were not clear before. It had appeared that you were just jumping on the troll bandwagon so I had lumped you in with them. My apologies on that. I think it was because of the muddied waters where folks were bringing a million different hypothetical situations that were not related and confusing opinion with official ruling. Hopefully we can get past this.

Like i said earlier, I am not in the circuit so i dont know you personally so i cant say that your are what you say you are or not. I'll say that you are because you would have only my word on my credentials. lol But over the last 30 years of gaming, I have been asked to act as a judge many times. I've always said no thanks, Id rather play. because I know what a headache judging can be. Everyone wants you on their side and its a general pain in the rear end. I always have respect for such people. judges umpires, referees..whatever the game or sport for this reason. Always having to read and scrutinize and work out worst case situations and what could or would and gauge honesty and intents. No thanks I'd rather just play the game.

21 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

I'd also like to advertise the ignore function once more because it greatly improves the forum.

But then you miss so many 🧐 posts!

@EVIL INC - If you're trying to accomplish anything other than make people dislike you, I don't think you're reaching that goal. If it feels like people are trolling you or piling on you, it's because they are piling on because you're playing the role of the aloof, condescending, "Well, actually..." guy. Yes, @Killerardvark is the guy in the pics and is a pillar in the X-Wing and judging community.

I'm not here to be liked. Dont care if i am or not. I simply gave my opinion on the ethics of the specific situation and the piling on started not because of aloofness but because my opinion was not popular. Your putting the cart before the horse.

Never said he was not.

Responding purely to the OP and I haven't read the replies. That said, I have two responses.

SERIOUS response:

An ethics violation is any act of dishonesty no matter how simple or subtle.

So in the simplest terms, to concede a match that you are clearly winning is an act of dishonesty and is clearly unethical. But it might be "legal" and you may not get kicked out of a tournament because of it.

I think this biggest 'problem' with you letting a weak player win in this type of scenario is that it lets them advance in a tournament when they normally shouldn't. That will unjustly rank that type of team and categorized them as being stronger than it really is and throw off general statistics used for cost adjustments as FFG tries to equalize this game.

It also wastes tournament resources on a player who shouldn't have been advanced.

HUMOR response:

Are you an Imperial Player ? Then you are doing it wrong by not grinding every opponent to dust. This is WAR! Eliminate the opponent! Anything less is treason to the Emperor!

First Order ? Same as above. Galaxies don't conquer themselves and you need to take every opportunity to eliminate any foe you face.

Scum and Villany : You're okay. No worries. If you're not cheating as a Scum player then you're doing it wrong! I mean, cheating is why you are a Scum player.

Alliance : You Rebel Beef players SHOULD concede and let someone else win every once in a while. Yeesh.

Resistance : You've found a team that can win consistently? Nice.

GAR : You are playing Anakin. He's a latent Sith lord. You need to get used to finishing that opponent off. Who am I kidding? If you're playing GAR you're not "finishing" opponents off . . .

Seperatists : Okay. Your evil. End your opponent! Finish him!

1 hour ago, EVIL INC said:

Actually, i have not been proven wrong at all. my views...

1. That i personally view that specific instance as unethical. That is an opinion. Most have shared it. There are a few of you who are spam trolling trying to upset me (the others who agree just backed out when they saw the behavior of the trolls, but i have never feared you. You obviously have a differing opinion but that is not proving me wrong.

2. That it is not up to random forum members to decide whether it is against the rules or not You guys (i say that because there are a few) are confusing rules and ethics and have gotten things all garbled. BUT as to whether or not it is legal, should be up to the judges of the tournament that you playing at. As the rules have such loopholes and are not always worded properly, there are interpretations of definitions and intents that different judges can interpret different ways. You guys are saying that one judge among the many's thoughts on it should be the law across every tournament big and small and screw the judges at the individual tournaments thoughts on the matter. You have yet to prove me wrong on that as well. Can you provide the documentation that proves this? There are many forums across the internet with thousands of members....Sorry, but I'm sticking with the "It is up to the judges of the event" statement.

3. That if a player is going into a tournament with this specific plan of playing the system instead of the game in mind, they should discuss it with the TO and judges beforehand to see if they will allow it. This is also an opinion. To me, that would be common sense. As there might be a judge there would disallow it and disqualify you. But as it is opinion there are different but no wrong ones in this situation.

You posted 2 pictures of a guy saying thats who he is. I could post 2 pictures of George Washington with little red squiggly arrows pointing to him with my name and you should believe that it is me? How does that one tv commercial go... "I'm a french model". You say he is, he says he is, ****, it could be trump taking a break from twitter for all I know...or care. until I am at an event and he walks up to me with a judge shirt on and escorts me out disqualifying me because I have a stricter sense of ethics in a forum online, I will never know for sure.

With maturity comes the knowledge that you never know it all. There is always something more to learn. I would never be so bigoted as to lump all old or young or black or white or jewish or whatever other group together slapping a bigoted stereotype onto them. There is always something to learn and when you stop trying to learn, you stagnate. an immature person will flame and troll and bully a person online as a few of you are doing because they hold a different opinion than yourself. That behavior is a statement. by treating them in such a manner you are telling them that they do not have the right to their differing opinion. if you felt they did have a right to it, you would have just said "Huhn, I disagree and here is why i feel the way I do" instead of hounding them through what is it now... 9 pages.

Again you are not acknowledging my point. I clearly stated that i was here to prove ardvark was a renowned judge and he can speak for other judges. I proved you wrong on this and only this: ardvark = renowned judge. You played dumb kept arguing other things i wasnt a part of. I posted video of where i got those pics and told you to google killerardvark and you would know his name and could confirm his identity. But you trolled, back pedaled and now are refusing to admit his position to the xwing community.

You admitted to trolling so any point being made at this point is null and void.

14 minutes ago, EVIL INC said:

I'm not here to be liked. Dont care if i am or not.

Okay. Got it.

You posted a few pictures. That tells me someone is a judge. You did not prove it was him. i'll acknowledge that it most likely is because you would likely not have gone to the trouble if it was not. You could also have posted pictures of Darth Vader saying that was him also. I probably would not have believed you then. i just added the darth vader part in to demonstrate a picture online does not prove it.But I'll give you that its him. After all you would only have my word that i've played in tourneys for 30 years or any of my qualification on other issues.

You did not prove that he speaks for ALL judges. He will obviously speak for may, possibly even most but he himself said in his last post not ALL In that post he agreed with me that it is better to go by the rulings of the judge of the event you are at.i admitted to trolling? lol. Now you are flat out lying. Although the antics of trolls such as yourself are entertaining I have been the target of trolls such as yourself though. Funny how even now,you continue. you quote my views and make the claim of proving them wrong but then talk about something else without proving me wrong at all on those views. If your going to continue, at least stay on topic if not be civil.

10 minutes ago, EVIL INC said:

You posted a few pictures. That tells me someone is a judge. You did not prove it was him. i'll acknowledge that it most likely is because you would likely not have gone to the trouble if it was not. You could also have posted pictures of Darth Vader saying that was him also. I probably would not have believed you then. i just added the darth vader part in to demonstrate a picture online does not prove it.But I'll give you that its him. After all you would only have my word that i've played in tourneys for 30 years or any of my qualification on other issues.

You did not prove that he speaks for ALL judges. He will obviously speak for may, possibly even most but he himself said in his last post not ALL In that post he agreed with me that it is better to go by the rulings of the judge of the event you are at.i admitted to trolling? lol. Now you are flat out lying. Although the antics of trolls such as yourself are entertaining I have been the target of trolls such as yourself though. Funny how even now,you continue. you quote my views and make the claim of proving them wrong but then talk about something else without proving me wrong at all on those views. If your going to continue, at least stay on topic if not be civil.

Yea you keep saying two pics, but then skip over googling his id, clicking the videos that i shared that showed the links, listening to a podcast that mentions his name and so on. But keep ignoring all the information i posted, others who followed it had no trouble finding his identity. That is the only point i set out to make, but instead of apologizing for your, “nice claim.” Comment you doubled down and lost.

@Mods, plz lock this thread down. It was an intriguing discussion made in good nature, but an insecure loudmouth is derailing it and lashing out at players. We want none of that in our silly forum about plastic spaceships of all trivial things.

We are talking about ethics . Not rulings. Whether or not something is ethical is an opinion based subject. like right and wrong. Different folks will have different views and opinions. You said you proved my opinions wrong. Stick to that. Did you go into my brain and make some radical discovery that I secretly thought it was ethical when i said that my opinion was that it was not? nope. Did you do the same when I said it was my opinion that it was a good idea to discuss it with the judges of the particular even in question before trying the ploy? Nope. Did you do the same when I said my opinion was that the judges of the particular even in question are the ones whose views on the rulings matter? nope. Yet the point you set out to make was that you proved me wrong on those opinions. Tsk tsk. you doubled down and lost.

I will give you that you provided 2 pictures of someone say it was aardvark. That is not proof because you could have posted 2 pictures of darth vader and said the same. I will give you that it was likely him or you would not have gone to the trouble of doing so and he would not have said he was one along with someone else saying he was one. But like I said, I will give you that gimmie but that is not what you said you proved me wrong on as we are discussing the ethics and opinions on the topic. Not rulings. not who is a judge. not whether the luke and lea had a secret love child.

At this point, your trolling is getting beyond entertainment and we are just beating the dead horse of different folks having stricter or looser ethics.

" @Mods, plz lock this thread down. It was an intriguing discussion made in good nature, but an insecure loudmouth is derailing it and lashing out at players. We want none of that in our silly forum about plastic spaceships of all trivial things."

Yes please do so. the insecure loudmouths lashing out at a player who has a differing opinion is not the sort of behavior that is needed here.

7 minutes ago, player3010587 said:

@Mods, plz lock this thread down. It was an intriguing discussion made in good nature, but an insecure loudmouth is derailing it and lashing out at players. We want none of that in our silly forum about plastic spaceships of all trivial things.

Isn't it ironic that he can't concede in a discussion where he thinks there is no ethically justified concession?

it is a discussion as to whether or not a thing is ethical. that is opinion based. There is no right or wrong answer. To concede would be to say that you dont have a right to hold that opinion because it is "wrong". So no, you do not need to concede.

But player is right. it is only a game. little plastic toys we push around on a table and we are discussing ethics which is opinion based. no need for you to lash out as you have been. It is likely best to just let it go. Not everyone agrees with you in your opinion that it is ethical. just because we feel it is unethical does not mean you are wrong. it just means we have a different view or perspective. No need to lash out as you have.

24 minutes ago, EVIL INC said:

Whether or not something is ethical is an opinion based subject. like right and wrong. Different folks will have different views and opinions.

You believe right and wrong to be subjective, then?

As with most things, i think it depends on the situation. A person might think it is wrong to steal. Another person might think it is right to steal food if it is to save a life. One person may think it is wrong to kill while another may think it is right to kill in self defense or to save the lives of others.

Off to work. I am sure there will be more pages to read through by the time I get back online. lol

16 minutes ago, EVIL INC said:

As with most things, i think it depends on the situation. A person might think it is wrong to steal. Another person might think it is right to steal food if it is to save a life. One person may think it is wrong to kill while another may think it is right to kill in self defense or to save the lives of others.

Off to work. I am sure there will be more pages to read through by the time I get back online. lol

I'm not sure that really answers the question. Of course people have different beliefs about right and wrong, but that says nothing about whether right and wrong are objective or subjective.

I currently pondering the ethics of 9 pages worth of arguing about the ethics of concessions.

6 minutes ago, Bucknife said:

I currently pondering the ethics of 9 pages worth of arguing about the ethics of concessions.

Ethics is just about the most worthwhile thing to argue about. Unfortunately, there's really only about two or three pages of that in this nine-page thread.

6 minutes ago, Bucknife said:

I currently pondering the ethics of 9 pages worth of arguing about the ethics of concessions.

🤨 More like 9 pages of people conflating "legal , "ethical" and "moral" as all being the same thing when they aren't and then smashing their heads together goat style with anyone they think is saying something they don't agree with.

2 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

🤨 More like 9 pages of people conflating "legal , "ethical" and "moral" as all being the same thing when they aren't and then smashing their heads together goat style with anyone they think is saying something they don't agree with.

To be fair, that was the single funniest Mountain Dew commercial of all time.

2 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

To be fair, that was the single funniest Mountain Dew commercial of all time.

Haven't seen it.

31 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Ethics is just about the most worthwhile thing to argue about. Unfortunately, there's really only about two or three pages of that in this nine-page thread.

The rest is playing "Where in the world is @Killerardvark "

25 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

Haven't seen it.