Jump to content
Crimsonwarlock

Ethics Question: Concessions

Recommended Posts

Ethically the original quandary is wrong, because as someone earlier stated, not only is your decision to drop based on the fact that you have already made the cut (which benefits you either in that you get a rest before the cut OR you're stacking the cut in your favor) but it artificially inflates a player's record who would have lost. This not only effects players making it into the top cut, but think of the knock on effects down the line. Imagine a newer player who just wanted dice who was on the 16/17 line being knocked out by you artificially and unilaterally changing the ladder by conceding. Arguably you are ruining the integrity of the entire tournament for no reason than your (albit hypothetical) gain. This isn't a personal attack, I'm just breaking down the ethical arguments. Ethically this is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Dr Moneypants said:

Ethically the original quandary is wrong, because as someone earlier stated, not only is your decision to drop based on the fact that you have already made the cut (which benefits you either in that you get a rest before the cut OR you're stacking the cut in your favor) but it artificially inflates a player's record who would have lost. This not only effects players making it into the top cut, but think of the knock on effects down the line. Imagine a newer player who just wanted dice who was on the 16/17 line being knocked out by you artificially and unilaterally changing the ladder by conceding. Arguably you are ruining the integrity of the entire tournament for no reason than your (albit hypothetical) gain. This isn't a personal attack, I'm just breaking down the ethical arguments. Ethically this is wrong.

literally no matter what decision he makes, it affects other players, artificially. 

He could have conceded without even playing the game, and that would be true. Or played it, and won, or played it, and lost.

He could fly off the board at any time (without discussing it with his opponent), and that be true.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tlfj200 said:

literally no matter what decision he makes, it affects other players, artificially. 

He could have conceded without even playing the game, and that would be true. Or played it, and won, or played it, and lost.

He could fly off the board at any time (without discussing it with his opponent), and that be true.

 

Not true. If he just plays his game it in no way artificially changes the results of the tournament as a whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Dr Moneypants said:

Not true. If he just plays his game it in no way artificially changes the results of the tournament as a whole.

But he always had the choice of not playing it. If his record is already so high he could concede and still make cut, without another incentive, he could easily have decided to take a break to mentally rest for the cut.

No one ever has to play a game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Tlfj200 said:

But he always had the choice of not playing it. If his record is already so high he could concede and still make cut, without another incentive, he could easily have decided to take a break to mentally rest for the cut.

No one ever has to play a game.

You're arguing that the Collusion rules are pointless. Take it up with Organized Play...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

You're arguing that the Collusion rules are pointless. Take it up with Organized Play...

I mean, I'm not (though, separately, there are issues with the "discussion" part).

He could literally not say any words but "I concede".

Edited by Tlfj200

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ethics can vary by personal ethos and community standards. To me I am a hard no on the entire scenario.  By not playing the 3-1 player you are cheating him of the game experience.  For the fast majority of players in a tournament the competitive experience is what they are paying for.  Even for 2 players of roughly equal skill with well matched lists variance in 2.0 will swing the favor to one player or another. 

I view this the same as intentional slow play.  An ethical no, but each person has to decide for them self.   The least objectionable would be to concede before putting ships on the table.  I for one hope FFG clarifies the rules on conceding a match.  My read on the rules are that it is intended for cases for giving a loosing player an out rather than play out the inevitable, or as a way of dealing with cases when a player has to leave because of some external reason.  It to me is clearly not the intent of a competitive play event for players to concede games in this manner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, NakedDex said:

People view concessions strangely, and rarely well. I was playing an Armada tournament that, frankly, I was having zero fun at because a plethora of very serious try-hards flew in for it. Long story short, mid way through the third round I knew I'd made an early missplay and was really hungry, so given the game state I offered to concede. The guy was literally offended, and in very clear terms told me I was worth more points to him by playing, and refused my concession, then spent the rest of the game criticising how I was playing, because I wasn't being aggressive, and then because I was apparently "needlessly sacrificing ships".

 

This isn't an answer to your question, but just an example of how wildly weird the attitudes towards conceding can be.

That's because conceding in armada gives a modified win, in an odd sort of way.  The non win/loss structure makes it odd.

9 hours ago, Jarval said:

I'm very concerned by the idea that people might have an issue with someone conceeding a game because they're feeling tired/hungry.  If I was 4-0 in a five round event and knew I was making the cut regardless of how that last game went, I'd much rather conceed, get some food and deal with the likely headache that I'll have at that stage of event than play a game and not really enjoy it.

You can always concede a game.  Just don't discuss anything related to standings with the opponent first.

Edited by Do I need a Username

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is unethical to throw the match? By throwing the match, sure that guy gets in on the cut, some other guy, who fairly won his match, does NOT. You did harm to him. You acted unethically. Just because someone benefits doesn't mean you did no harm.

Throwing the match to try to avoid an opponent is certainly a strategy although hardly a sound one. So many factors goes into pairings it is hard to predict if throwing the match will give you the desired outcome and will cheat someone of their position if you played fairly and to the best of your abilities. This part isn't so much ethics as it is sportsmanship which such a strategy is devoid of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mep said:

Throwing the match to try to avoid an opponent is certainly a strategy although hardly a sound one. So many factors goes into pairings it is hard to predict if throwing the match will give you the desired outcome and will cheat someone of their position if you played fairly and to the best of your abilities.

Sure, it may be hard to predict at a large event. At a smaller event with a top 4, it would be easier to calculate.

Either way, regardless of how people feel. Barring any collusion, it's perfectly legal to concede a game at any point in time for any reason.

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Jarval said:

I'm very concerned by the idea that people might have an issue with someone conceeding a game because they're feeling tired/hungry.  If I was 4-0 in a five round event and knew I was making the cut regardless of how that last game went, I'd much rather conceed, get some food and deal with the likely headache that I'll have at that stage of event than play a game and not really enjoy it.

I like my breaks. During a long day of X-Wing, I'll be very tempted to throw a game to get some time to smoke/pee/eat without being in a rush.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jeff Wilder said:

As always, there seems to be a contingent of folks who don't quite grok that "strictly legal per the rules?" and "ethical?" are two different questions.

I don't know what grok means or if you're referring to me, but I do agree that legal and ethical are two different things especially in X-Wing. It's an interesting ven diagram between different organizations on how much legal stuff is unethical or illegal stuff is ethical. For the stuff that's deemed unethical by the masses but legal by the rules, you gotta choose for yourself and shrug off the haters. It's the shaming of other people for their choices that bothers me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Killerardvark said:

It's the shaming of other people for their choices that bothers me.

See, you say "shaming," but I say "justified dislike of unethical behavior, couple with vocal expression of same."  I get that one is a lot wordier than the other.

Philosophically, and historically, the way that things work toward congruence between "ethical" and "legal" is when people speak up against the unethical ... even when it's technically legal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

Thanks! Interesting, though I can't get the visual of Gronk spiking a football out of my head when I read that.

3 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

See, you say "shaming," but I say "justified dislike of unethical behavior, couple with vocal expression of same."  I get that one is a lot wordier than the other.

Philosophically, and historically, the way that things work toward congruence between "ethical" and "legal" is when people speak up against the unethical ... even when it's technically legal.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Killerardvark said:

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

I do concede that there's a line, and I agree with you (I think?) that it's at the point of personal attacks.  I'm guilty of crossing that line more often than I should, and although I have improved (hard to believe, I know), I'll undoubtedly do it more in the future.  It's a defect in my character.  (One of ... well, more wealth than you can imagine.)

But I do not believe or accept that "you -- yes, you, specifically -- are engaging in unethical behavior" crosses that line, FWIW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, NakedDex said:

People view concessions strangely, and rarely well. I was playing an Armada tournament that, frankly, I was having zero fun at because a plethora of very serious try-hards flew in for it. Long story short, mid way through the third round I knew I'd made an early missplay and was really hungry, so given the game state I offered to concede. The guy was literally offended, and in very clear terms told me I was worth more points to him by playing, and refused my concession, then spent the rest of the game criticising how I was playing, because I wasn't being aggressive, and then because I was apparently "needlessly sacrificing ships".

 

This isn't an answer to your question, but just an example of how wildly weird the attitudes towards conceding can be.

Your opponent in this situation was a jerk. If it's a tourney, then it's not his place to accept your concession when you're not enjoying yourself. He sounds like he would have been a jerk even if you hadn't offered to concede, and is probably a jerk in other areas of his life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes 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.

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

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Killerardvark said:

I didn't read anything in the original post that indicated any collusion. I might ask those around the table if they heard any discussion that would raise any flags. Beyond that, it's legal.

Ethically? If it benefits you in some way for the tournament then it's a good decision for you. There's always going to be someone that gets upset that some other match caused them to miss the cut. The community is also very against anything other than "play as hard as possible all the time!!!" If it didn't benefit you in any way and you just did it because, the community is likely to come down on your harder. Still not against the rules, just makes people uppity and they'll assume foul play.

I've seen team in other sporting events play hard against certain teams, only score a certain number of points, run up a score, or even score on themselves to set a seed in cut. The system is there, do what you gotta do within the rules.

On the contrary, the moment the opponent said they needed to win to make the cut, any decision to concede is the result of collusion.

Ethically, this is very dubious, at best. It's using the letter of the rules (and possibly not even that) in order to manipulate the system to your benefit, or to the benefit of friends. That's generally where ethics start looking side-eyed at decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, NakedDex said:

refused my concession,

? Conceding can be refused? I don't play Armada, but that sounds way off to me. If you concede you surrendered the field to them and they have won. Forcing you to play past that point is dictatorial bull ****.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jeff Wilder said:

See, you say "shaming," but I say "justified dislike of unethical behavior, couple with vocal expression of same."  I get that one is a lot wordier than the other.

Philosophically, and historically, the way that things work toward congruence between "ethical" and "legal" is when people speak up against the unethical ... even when it's technically legal.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...