Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Killerardvark

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

1,292 profile views
  1. 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".
  2. I refuse to concede, it's unethical.
  4. Just to be clear, the ethics are debatable and you are welcome to your opinion. Heck, i'm somewhere in the middle on it. I just want to make sure people are aware that it's currently legal, at least at the bigger FFG sanctioned events. Like you said, check with your judges if you're at a smaller event.
  5. Me: Worlds judge twice, System Open judge twice, System Open marshal once, USA Nationals judge, North American Championship judge Also confirmed it's ok by Michael Jures (North American Championship 2x judge and marshal this year, upcoming worlds judge, System open judge 3x), Iain Hamp (Marshalled more system opens that I can count, worlds judge 3x), and Brent Wong (Worlds judge 4x i think, System open marshall and judge multiple times, North American Championship multiple times, etc.) I now challenge you to go to any tournament above a Hyperspace Trial and try to call a judge on someone doing this. There's a decent chance you'll get one of these people and be disappointed. It's completely ok to think it's not ethical. That's a very real debate and I don't fault anyone who refuses to concede by principal. Stick to your morals. It's in no way illegal though.
  6. You keep saying to go to a tournament and try this on a judge... I am the judge, lol. If a player asks me if they can concede, I ask "did you discuss it with your opponent at all?" if the answer is no, it's legal. Why is never part of the equation as long as that first question is justified.
  7. If I'm winning 150 to 75 and I concede, all my ships are destroyed and I lose 200 to 150. I report a 200 to 150 loss. No results have been altered.
  8. Perhaps we're discussing different instances. I'm not refering to altering game results. The results are as is. "I concede, you win." that's the result, and that's what's reported. Altering game results would be, "I won, but lets write down that you won with a score of X-Y".
  9. Conceding at any time as long as there was no collusion between players is perfectly legal. If a player, on his own accord, realizes that winning the game is detrimental to him winning the tournament and concedes, that's fine. Declaring it as... is hardly black and white and I know many judges that would disagree with you.
  10. 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.
  11. "From a certain point of view..." - Obi-Wan
  12. Eh, in the higher competitive environment I very much disagree.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. Thanks! Interesting, though I can't get the visual of Gronk spiking a football out of my head when I read that. There's a line Jeff. I don't mind speaking against an idea. It's when that speaking up is targeted at a specific person that your quest for ethics becomes unethical O_o
  • Create New...