Tony, captain of Team Happy, here to address the issues from this year’s ATC and formally suggest a competitive tournament code of conduct. First, I want to apologize for my team’s shortcomings. We did accidentally use a plasma pistol that was not included in the army list. We did have a heated conversation during a contentious game. We did have several converted models that had not been approved before the event.
Several other top teams also had similar issues at the ATC. As captain of Team Happy I am ultimately responsible for my team’s conduct and again admit that we were a part of this group. I did not protest our punishment, even as it changed in response to petitions and lobbying from other teams. Our only request to the T.O.s of ATC is that we be treated fairly and in line with the other teams and that they do not give in to the targeted efforts of this very small group of toxic individuals.
To show our commitment to moving the community in a positive direction, we are suggesting the following rules of conduct are put in place by T.O.s across the competitive landscape for all events. Most importantly, we urge that that they are applied evenly and consistently across all participants, and not used as a tool of intimidation by those who have a louder voice or a larger platform.
1. If a list is found to be over the allotted number of points, the participant receives an automatic disqualification.
2. If a participant is found to be using an unapproved conversion, the model is removed for the remainder of the event and the participant must play points down.
3. If a participant is found to be using a non WYSIWYG model, the model is removed for the remainder of the event and the participant must play points down.
These rules represent the start of a more comprehensive list. We also recommend that an affidavit of completion/validity is added to the score sheet and that both players are required to sign verifying that the game was played fairly and that the results are valid.
Team Happy feels that the tournament scene and the hobby are better off with a clearly and evenly applied set of rules. We are committed to the above rules moving forward and will do our best to bring the competitive scene out of the dark place that it has been dragged to.
We hope that T.O.s across the country incorporate these suggestions into their tournament packets so that all participants can have confidence that they will be treated fairly. I am committed to personally embodying these ideals moving forward.
How about you and your happy team just quietly sit and do some personal reflection on how to be better people with less character flaws. ITC will and has taken the mantle on this without the need for your input; i'm sure. Thanks, now you especially should do well to just be quiet and let this fade some after LVO and now ATC.
quickfuze wrote: How about you and your happy team just quietly sit and do some personal reflection on how to be better people with less character flaws. ITC will and has taken the mantle on this without the need for your input; i'm sure. Thanks, now you especially should do well to just be quiet and let this fade some after LVO and now ATC.
They have actually, and it's currently a point of discussion in the ITC Tournament Organizers page.
So I guess we could say thank you, Team Happy. Your misconduct has finally forced this issue to be dealt with.
I'm not certain I trust Team Happy to lead this discussion - they've already been so oriented to gaming the system I'd instinctively distrust anything they attach their name to.
GW used to have the equivalent of PP's 'Page 5':
Could serve as a launching point. I agree there needs to be a sliding scale of penalties but TOs should be able to boot someone if they are a toxic presence.
HappyTony wrote: Tony, captain of Team Happy, here to address the issues from this year’s ATC and formally suggest a competitive tournament code of conduct. First, I want to apologize for my team’s shortcomings. We did accidentally use a plasma pistol that was not included in the army list. We did have a heated conversation during a contentious game. We did have several converted models that had not been approved before the event.
Several other top teams also had similar issues at the ATC. As captain of Team Happy I am ultimately responsible for my team’s conduct and again admit that we were a part of this group. I did not protest our punishment, even as it changed in response to petitions and lobbying from other teams. Our only request to the T.O.s of ATC is that we be treated fairly and in line with the other teams and that they do not give in to the targeted efforts of this very small group of toxic individuals.
To show our commitment to moving the community in a positive direction, we are suggesting the following rules of conduct are put in place by T.O.s across the competitive landscape for all events. Most importantly, we urge that that they are applied evenly and consistently across all participants, and not used as a tool of intimidation by those who have a louder voice or a larger platform.
1. If a list is found to be over the allotted number of points, the participant receives an automatic disqualification.
2. If a participant is found to be using an unapproved conversion, the model is removed for the remainder of the event and the participant must play points down.
3. If a participant is found to be using a non WYSIWYG model, the model is removed for the remainder of the event and the participant must play points down.
These rules represent the start of a more comprehensive list. We also recommend that an affidavit of completion/validity is added to the score sheet and that both players are required to sign verifying that the game was played fairly and that the results are valid.
Team Happy feels that the tournament scene and the hobby are better off with a clearly and evenly applied set of rules. We are committed to the above rules moving forward and will do our best to bring the competitive scene out of the dark place that it has been dragged to.
We hope that T.O.s across the country incorporate these suggestions into their tournament packets so that all participants can have confidence that they will be treated fairly. I am committed to personally embodying these ideals moving forward.
Well said Tony, it takes a brave person to come forward and admit your flaws. I agree with your suggestions and hope that TO's adopt them. Don't let the toxic elements of this community hold you down.
Whether this is legit or trolling the conspicuous absence of anything addressing slow play concerns was good for a laugh. We would certainly not want to remove everything in the toolbox.
1. If a list is found to be over the allotted number of points, the participant receives an automatic disqualification.
2. If a participant is found to be using an unapproved conversion, the model is removed for the remainder of the event and the participant must play points down.
3. If a participant is found to be using a non WYSIWYG model, the model is removed for the remainder of the event and the participant must play points down.
These need clarification. Just to go back to the plasma pistol everyone is talking about a person could claim that it's a matter of 1: (failed to pay points for pistol) or 3: (Model is not WYSIWYG) or even 2: (glowing bolt pistol too similar to plasma psitol)?
ChargerIIC wrote: These need clarification. Just to go back to the plasma pistol everyone is talking about a person could claim that it's a matter of 1: (failed to pay points for pistol) or 3: (Model is not WYSIWYG) or even 2: (glowing bolt pistol too similar to plasma psitol)?
That would depend entirely on how they use the model rules-wise. "Sergeant with plasma pistol" written in the army list and/or rolling the model's attacks at STR 7 instead of STR 4? That's an illegal list, DQ. "Sergeant with bolt pistol" written in the army list and rolling the attacks at STR 4, but the model has a plasma pistol? Not WYSIWYG and model is removed.
ChargerIIC wrote: These need clarification. Just to go back to the plasma pistol everyone is talking about a person could claim that it's a matter of 1: (failed to pay points for pistol) or 3: (Model is not WYSIWYG) or even 2: (glowing bolt pistol too similar to plasma psitol)?
That would depend entirely on how they use the model rules-wise. "Sergeant with plasma pistol" written in the army list and/or rolling the model's attacks at STR 7 instead of STR 4? That's an illegal list, DQ. "Sergeant with bolt pistol" written in the army list and rolling the attacks at STR 4, but the model has a plasma pistol? Not WYSIWYG and model is removed.
Personally I couldn't give a rats a$$ if Team Happy apologizes.
However this has got to be the most left handed apology I've ever seen.
We had illegal lists........but so did others
I was cool with our punishment...... Regardless of the extreme "Witch Hunting " we endured.
Oh and btw.... We have only won this thing 3 times in a row and attend many other events yet we still can't figure out how to follow the basic Tournament guidelines....... Let us fix it for you !
I was there... We were heading into first place when this all went down possibly having to play Team Happy..... Not one person approached us to threaten to leave...
Was there a small group of guys who were verbal what was going on.. And your team ?! Maybe..
However it's a damn insult to myself and the other captains and players to insinuate that we needed to run you guys out on a rail so we could fair better at the ATC.
HappyTony, so what’s the penalty when you think you are going to lose so you start to make erroneous rules questions to intentionally slow down the game?
Today is a Happy day. Today irony was redefined forever.
HappyTony wrote: Tony, captain of Team Happy, here to address the issues from this year’s ATC and formally suggest a competitive tournament code of conduct. First, I want to apologize for my team’s shortcomings. We did accidentally use a plasma pistol that was not included in the army list. We did have a heated conversation during a contentious game. We did have several converted models that had not been approved before the event.
Was it really accidental? Seems convenient.
Several other top teams also had similar issues at the ATC. As captain of Team Happy I am ultimately responsible for my team’s conduct and again admit that we were a part of this group. I did not protest our punishment, even as it changed in response to petitions and lobbying from other teams. Our only request to the T.O.s of ATC is that we be treated fairly and in line with the other teams and that they do not give in to the targeted efforts of this very small group of toxic individuals.
"Small group of toxic individuals" you say? It seems like a lot of people who attended the ATC would say that perfectly describes Team Happy.
To show our commitment to moving the community in a positive direction, we are suggesting the following rules of conduct are put in place by T.O.s across the competitive landscape for all events. Most importantly, we urge that that they are applied evenly and consistently across all participants, and not used as a tool of intimidation by those who have a louder voice or a larger platform.
1. If a list is found to be over the allotted number of points, the participant receives an automatic disqualification.
2. If a participant is found to be using an unapproved conversion, the model is removed for the remainder of the event and the participant must play points down.
3. If a participant is found to be using a non WYSIWYG model, the model is removed for the remainder of the event and the participant must play points down.
These rules represent the start of a more comprehensive list. We also recommend that an affidavit of completion/validity is added to the score sheet and that both players are required to sign verifying that the game was played fairly and that the results are valid.
Team Happy feels that the tournament scene and the hobby are better off with a clearly and evenly applied set of rules. We are committed to the above rules moving forward and will do our best to bring the competitive scene out of
the dark place that it has been dragged to.
You mean the dark place your team members dragged it to?
Your suggestions seem reasonable but it appears you're a little late since the ITC are already looking into forming a code of conduct after what happened at the ATC. To be honest, I don't think formulating a code of conduct is difficult. Even the specifics of what penalties should apply for rules breaches isn't really all that important, IMO, as long as those rules are and penalties are clear and objective. What is important is that the rules are enforced properly. I think in order to do that there needs to be more consideration given to how TOs can effectively referee tournaments. We need better systems for list checking both before an event and during it. We need better systems to stop slow play (the introduction of chess clocks may help with this, it's a step in the right direction at least).
NecronLord3 wrote: HappyTony, so what’s the penalty when you think you are going to lose so you start to make erroneous rules questions to intentionally slow down the game?
What, someone really did that? I'm shocked. I was told, in the chess clock debate, that nobody would ever do this to waste time and if they did the judge would DQ them for cheating so it wouldn't work.
HappyTony wrote: We also recommend that an affidavit of completion/validity is added to the score sheet and that both players are required to sign verifying that the game was played fairly and that the results are valid.
Ah, so if someone figures out their opponent cheated after the fact, then they have no recourse. I can see why one might want that.
Yeah, Team Happy will submit a legal list, but they will still cheat by "accidentally" using a plasma pistol that they didn't pay for, but there won't be any recourse afterwards? <REDACTED> that bull gak.
Please do NOT circumvent the language filters - BrookM
Please stop guys, we all know that this isn't the real Tony. I appreciate the effort the troll put in, but spreading misinformation is the worst thing we can do in the current situation.
HappyTony wrote: Tony, captain of Team Happy, here to address the issues from this year’s ATC and formally suggest a competitive tournament code of conduct. First, I want to apologize for my team’s shortcomings. We did accidentally use a plasma pistol that was not included in the army list. We did have a heated conversation during a contentious game. We did have several converted models that had not been approved before the event.
Several other top teams also had similar issues at the ATC. As captain of Team Happy I am ultimately responsible for my team’s conduct and again admit that we were a part of this group. I did not protest our punishment, even as it changed in response to petitions and lobbying from other teams. Our only request to the T.O.s of ATC is that we be treated fairly and in line with the other teams and that they do not give in to the targeted efforts of this very small group of toxic individuals.
To show our commitment to moving the community in a positive direction, we are suggesting the following rules of conduct are put in place by T.O.s across the competitive landscape for all events. Most importantly, we urge that that they are applied evenly and consistently across all participants, and not used as a tool of intimidation by those who have a louder voice or a larger platform.
1. If a list is found to be over the allotted number of points, the participant receives an automatic disqualification.
2. If a participant is found to be using an unapproved conversion, the model is removed for the remainder of the event and the participant must play points down.
3. If a participant is found to be using a non WYSIWYG model, the model is removed for the remainder of the event and the participant must play points down.
These rules represent the start of a more comprehensive list. We also recommend that an affidavit of completion/validity is added to the score sheet and that both players are required to sign verifying that the game was played fairly and that the results are valid.
Team Happy feels that the tournament scene and the hobby are better off with a clearly and evenly applied set of rules. We are committed to the above rules moving forward and will do our best to bring the competitive scene out of the dark place that it has been dragged to.
We hope that T.O.s across the country incorporate these suggestions into their tournament packets so that all participants can have confidence that they will be treated fairly. I am committed to personally embodying these ideals moving forward.
Is this really Tony? With at least one obvious sock puppet suddenly appearing to defend Team Happy it is hard to know what to believe. However at the risk of being trolled I will engage.
1. I would include here any in-game mistakes made relating to modelling for confusion. The plasma pistol would be an example of this - the model does not represent the list therefore is confusing. If the player owning the model make a mistake due to modelling confusion that was entirely under their control then an immediate DQ.
2. The problem here is obviously players who claim that they are approved and which actually were not. I would suggest mandatory printed photographic crib sheets which can be stamped/signed by the TO to show that they are actually approved. No approved sheet - you cannot use the model. Remove from list and if that makes your list invalid then you are out of luck.
3. Yes but see above, if the model has been used in a way not supported by the list then rule 1 should apply. If the model is claimed to be a conversion but there is no crib sheet then apply the penalties for rule 2.
There are of course a lot more things that need to be in a code of conduct. I strongly believe that dissent - refusing to accept the ruling of a judge - has to be immediate DQ for the good of the event. Actually I think that this one goes to the heart of everything and a tournament that has an instance of dissent should probably also issue a ban for a period except in exceptional mitigating circumstances.
Finally I will state the obvious, for Team Happy to write the rules of conduct right now has deep problems. With reputations currently in the gutter why would anybody presume good intent here? ATC had a set of rules for this - they applied them and on the uncontested facts of infringements the rules were eventually correctly applied. I am in the internet minority in not seeing any real scandal here - infringement happened and the correct penalty was applied for those infringements. If there is a problem with other teams flying under the radar with infringements then that is probably due to this one team taking up all the attention of the judges - that is a shame but it is a consequence of this team misbehaving and I am not going to blame the TO's or judges for struggling to cope with a difficult situation not of their making. They have already said that they will tweak their rules for future events having learned lessons here - Team Happy should leave them to it and not try to interfere in that process in any way.
Having Team Happy suggest the code of conduct is akin to asking the fox to design the hen house.
The fact that you're asking people to "sign an affidavit" after the game reeks of desire to abuse the system, as it would prevent mistakes from being rectified and cheaters being punished if they were caught at any time later...sound familiar? It effectively says, "We think we can get away with it in the moment and want to cement our ability to do so."
The only reason that the scene is in a "dark place" is because of your own, repeated, behaviors.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
HappyTony wrote: I did not protest our punishment, even as it changed in response to petitions and lobbying from other teams..
And also, you need to quit this BS. ATC went on the record as noting that *you* had suggested that your team leave if another single issue...which then happened. To date, I haven't seen any denial from you nor your team that that happened, so it seems accurate. So this wasn't some sort of "harsh, unfair, mob" punishment: you were given exactly what you asked for.
Hey everyone, just as an FYI, the community of ITC event organizers is indeed working on a set of Floor Rules that can be used by any event organizer at their discretion.
It provides a system of guidelines for player conduct and judge responses. It is being actively worked on by over 200 judges all of whom are experienced organizers.
If you are an ITC event organizer and not in the FB group, please email me (don't PM me on Dakka, I haven't checked those in years) and I will be happy to help you out.
Thanks to everyone contributing to this effort as it will help a great deal to standardize tournament play and avoid situations that can cause conflict and controversy. It will also help to recognize and reward exemplary sportsmanship, too!
I didn’t think that someone could look less honorable from circulating an anti-cheating platform, but asking your opponents to sign an affidavit that you didn’t cheat them might do it.
HappyTony wrote: 1. If a list is found to be over the allotted number of points, the participant receives an automatic disqualification.
2. If a participant is found to be using an unapproved conversion, the model is removed for the remainder of the event and the participant must play points down.
3. If a participant is found to be using a non WYSIWYG model, the model is removed for the remainder of the event and the participant must play points down.
Let me add to this list.
4. If a player is found to be engaging in 'Slow Play', that player forfeits the match.
5. If a player is nagging their opponent to complete their turn quickly, placing undue pressure on their opponent, that player forfeits the match.
6. If a player assists or otherwise manipulates their opponent into making a game losing error rather than pointing out the potential mistake, that player forfeits the match.
Alot is subjective. What about the guys that complain about slow play after they lose, but are fine with going slow. Slow play is very seldom one player.
Slow play isn't subjective at all. What turn did the game get to when it ended? Did they make it to Turn 5, or did they only make it to Turn 3? That right there is an objective measure. You need to make it to Turn 5 by a certain time limit, but failed to do so. If they only made it to Turn 3, then which player took up the most amount of time? That's the player engaging in slow play. When one player spends an hour on a single turn in a 2 1/2 hour game, that's clearly the player engaging in slow play.
The solution to that is easy, though. Put a clock on each player. Although I'd suggest giving each player a single allotment of time, rather than giving them a specific time limit per turn. First turns typically take longer than final turns, after all, as you likely have your whole army or a good chunk of it on the first turn, while large portions of it are probably gone by the last turn. My suggestion to that is for each player to have a clock and be allotted 75 minutes to play (Assuming we're going for 2.5 hour battles). The player hits the clock before they start their turn, take their turn, and then pause the clock when they finished their turn. If their clock runs out then they can do nothing else, so it'll encourage them to play at a reasonable pace. So for example...
TURN 1 - Player turns on the clock, does all his stuff, and pauses the clock. He's used up 18 minutes, leaving him 57 minutes.
TURN 2 - Player turns on the clock, does all his stuff, and pauses the clock. He's used 17 minutes, leaving him 40 minutes.
TURN 3 - Player turns on the clock, does all his stuff, and pauses the clock. He's used 13 minutes, leaving him 27 minutes.
TURN 4 - Player turns on the clock, does all his stuff, and pauses the clock. He's used 10 minutes, leaving him 17 minutes.
TURN 5 - Player turns on the clock, does all his stuff, and pauses the clock. He's used 8 minutes, leaving him 9 minutes.
So if one player actually takes an hour on their first turn, they'll only have 15 minutes left to use on subsequent turns, so they won't be able to slow play the game so that it can't get past Turn 3, while the player who's more frugal with their use of time can get repeated turns against their opponent unopposed. Slow play would come to a dead halt if that were implemented.
Chief Librarian Mephiston wrote: Slow play isn't subjective at all. What turn did the game get to when it ended? Did they make it to Turn 5, or did they only make it to Turn 3? That right there is an objective measure. You need to make it to Turn 5 by a certain time limit, but failed to do so. If they only made it to Turn 3, then which player took up the most amount of time? That's the player engaging in slow play. When one player spends an hour on a single turn in a 2 1/2 hour game, that's clearly the player engaging in slow play.
The solution to that is easy, though. Put a clock on each player. Although I'd suggest giving each player a single allotment of time, rather than giving them a specific time limit per turn. First turns typically take longer than final turns, after all, as you likely have your whole army or a good chunk of it on the first turn, while large portions of it are probably gone by the last turn. My suggestion to that is for each player to have a clock and be allotted 75 minutes to play (Assuming we're going for 2.5 hour battles). The player hits the clock before they start their turn, take their turn, and then pause the clock when they finished their turn. If their clock runs out then they can do nothing else, so it'll encourage them to play at a reasonable pace. So for example...
TURN 1 - Player turns on the clock, does all his stuff, and pauses the clock. He's used up 18 minutes, leaving him 57 minutes.
TURN 2 - Player turns on the clock, does all his stuff, and pauses the clock. He's used 17 minutes, leaving him 40 minutes.
TURN 3 - Player turns on the clock, does all his stuff, and pauses the clock. He's used 13 minutes, leaving him 27 minutes.
TURN 4 - Player turns on the clock, does all his stuff, and pauses the clock. He's used 10 minutes, leaving him 17 minutes.
TURN 5 - Player turns on the clock, does all his stuff, and pauses the clock. He's used 8 minutes, leaving him 9 minutes.
So if one player actually takes an hour on their first turn, they'll only have 15 minutes left to use on subsequent turns, so they won't be able to slow play the game so that it can't get past Turn 3, while the player who's more frugal with their use of time can get repeated turns against their opponent unopposed. Slow play would come to a dead halt if that were implemented.
The problems with this have been beaten to death in another thread https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/760214.page Since this is a back and forth game a single player's turn isn't done in a vacuum. There is room on both sides to abuse the clock and cost an opponent time.
A better solution would be better monitoring by the judges, but that could require more judges and a change to how tables are positioned within the space, which may wind up placing a cap on the max number of players.
Perhaps use a clock to get an idea how long each player is taking rather than using it to enforce time limits.
It would be a chess clock in reverse. If a player needs to question rules, then the clock is stopped. If there is a debate for 25 minutes, it would not be allocated to either player. But by the end of official game time, you will have an idea of who took the most time.
Reecius wrote: Hey everyone, just as an FYI, the community of ITC event organizers is indeed working on a set of Floor Rules that can be used by any event organizer at their discretion.
It provides a system of guidelines for player conduct and judge responses. It is being actively worked on by over 200 judges all of whom are experienced organizers.
If you are an ITC event organizer and not in the FB group, please email me (don't PM me on Dakka, I haven't checked those in years) and I will be happy to help you out.
Thanks to everyone contributing to this effort as it will help a great deal to standardize tournament play and avoid situations that can cause conflict and controversy. It will also help to recognize and reward exemplary sportsmanship, too!
Are you accepting external input/ideas, Reece?
I was putting something a bit more comprehensive together, but, if you've already got over 200 people doing so i'll probably hold off continuing.
Chief Librarian Mephiston wrote: Slow play isn't subjective at all. What turn did the game get to when it ended? Did they make it to Turn 5, or did they only make it to Turn 3? That right there is an objective measure. You need to make it to Turn 5 by a certain time limit, but failed to do so. If they only made it to Turn 3, then which player took up the most amount of time? That's the player engaging in slow play. When one player spends an hour on a single turn in a 2 1/2 hour game, that's clearly the player engaging in slow play.
The solution to that is easy, though. Put a clock on each player. Although I'd suggest giving each player a single allotment of time, rather than giving them a specific time limit per turn. First turns typically take longer than final turns, after all, as you likely have your whole army or a good chunk of it on the first turn, while large portions of it are probably gone by the last turn. My suggestion to that is for each player to have a clock and be allotted 75 minutes to play (Assuming we're going for 2.5 hour battles). The player hits the clock before they start their turn, take their turn, and then pause the clock when they finished their turn. If their clock runs out then they can do nothing else, so it'll encourage them to play at a reasonable pace. So for example...
TURN 1 - Player turns on the clock, does all his stuff, and pauses the clock. He's used up 18 minutes, leaving him 57 minutes.
TURN 2 - Player turns on the clock, does all his stuff, and pauses the clock. He's used 17 minutes, leaving him 40 minutes.
TURN 3 - Player turns on the clock, does all his stuff, and pauses the clock. He's used 13 minutes, leaving him 27 minutes.
TURN 4 - Player turns on the clock, does all his stuff, and pauses the clock. He's used 10 minutes, leaving him 17 minutes.
TURN 5 - Player turns on the clock, does all his stuff, and pauses the clock. He's used 8 minutes, leaving him 9 minutes.
So if one player actually takes an hour on their first turn, they'll only have 15 minutes left to use on subsequent turns, so they won't be able to slow play the game so that it can't get past Turn 3, while the player who's more frugal with their use of time can get repeated turns against their opponent unopposed. Slow play would come to a dead halt if that were implemented.
The problems with this have been beaten to death in another thread https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/760214.page Since this is a back and forth game a single player's turn isn't done in a vacuum. There is room on both sides to abuse the clock and cost an opponent time.
A better solution would be better monitoring by the judges, but that could require more judges and a change to how tables are positioned within the space, which may wind up placing a cap on the max number of players.
Which is why the second my opponent touches a dice, paper, book, measuring tape, whatever.... I'm bouncing the clock to them.
Chief Librarian Mephiston wrote: Slow play isn't subjective at all. What turn did the game get to when it ended? Did they make it to Turn 5, or did they only make it to Turn 3? That right there is an objective measure. You need to make it to Turn 5 by a certain time limit, but failed to do so. If they only made it to Turn 3, then which player took up the most amount of time? That's the player engaging in slow play. When one player spends an hour on a single turn in a 2 1/2 hour game, that's clearly the player engaging in slow play.
The solution to that is easy, though. Put a clock on each player. Although I'd suggest giving each player a single allotment of time, rather than giving them a specific time limit per turn. First turns typically take longer than final turns, after all, as you likely have your whole army or a good chunk of it on the first turn, while large portions of it are probably gone by the last turn. My suggestion to that is for each player to have a clock and be allotted 75 minutes to play (Assuming we're going for 2.5 hour battles). The player hits the clock before they start their turn, take their turn, and then pause the clock when they finished their turn. If their clock runs out then they can do nothing else, so it'll encourage them to play at a reasonable pace. So for example...
TURN 1 - Player turns on the clock, does all his stuff, and pauses the clock. He's used up 18 minutes, leaving him 57 minutes.
TURN 2 - Player turns on the clock, does all his stuff, and pauses the clock. He's used 17 minutes, leaving him 40 minutes.
TURN 3 - Player turns on the clock, does all his stuff, and pauses the clock. He's used 13 minutes, leaving him 27 minutes.
TURN 4 - Player turns on the clock, does all his stuff, and pauses the clock. He's used 10 minutes, leaving him 17 minutes.
TURN 5 - Player turns on the clock, does all his stuff, and pauses the clock. He's used 8 minutes, leaving him 9 minutes.
So if one player actually takes an hour on their first turn, they'll only have 15 minutes left to use on subsequent turns, so they won't be able to slow play the game so that it can't get past Turn 3, while the player who's more frugal with their use of time can get repeated turns against their opponent unopposed. Slow play would come to a dead halt if that were implemented.
The problems with this have been beaten to death in another thread https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/760214.page Since this is a back and forth game a single player's turn isn't done in a vacuum. There is room on both sides to abuse the clock and cost an opponent time.
A better solution would be better monitoring by the judges, but that could require more judges and a change to how tables are positioned within the space, which may wind up placing a cap on the max number of players.
Which is why the second my opponent touches a dice, paper, book, measuring tape, whatever.... I'm bouncing the clock to them.
Yep. The other player wants to contest something while you're taking your turn? Stop the clock and they start theirs. They're now using their time to contest something.
njtrader wrote: Game size for competitive play should be 1,500 pts with a turn timer.
Don't be an donkey-cave is and always should be rule #1.
Neckbeard asshats are -not- welcome.
Agreed, njtrader.
But not a Time Turner. The chess clock works really well on managing & eliminating Slow Play. I've used them in all my games for over a month (still looking for a decent phone app chess clock before I buy another accesssory to haul around along with dice and models). Many others at my LGS are using them. It is the Silver Bullet to solve the problem. Ask a War Machine player or TO.
I am a slow player (read: incompetent, dithering idiot). I stopped playing eldar last winter because I would barely get to Turn 4 with the tons of shooting, Psy-phase choices, all that. So I ran khorne daemon bombs throughout spring, eliminating psy and shooting; low and behold, I was finishing games! Losses mostly.
I am now running Dark Eldar. My 2nd turn takes forever because it's 27 wyches, their raiders (charging & assaulting with all of that), the 3 characters that disembark and assault with them. Plus 17 to 25+ Lances and blasters. If I deep strike 3x5 scourges, that's more time.
The chess clock is making me play faster. And when I run out of time, as I have on two occasions, I helplessly watched my game become a loss, because I used up my half of the game's allotted 150 minutes. 'Tis perfect for stopping time between both players for rules check (which usually gobbles the one player's time, not a Total Stop). And being responsible for your own time, Slow Play is only a problem where Chess Clocks aren't being used.
But not a Time Turner. The chess clock works really well on managing & eliminating Slow Play. I've used them in all my games for over a month (still looking for a decent phone app chess clock before I buy another accesssory to haul around along with dice and models). Many others at my LGS are using them. It is the Silver Bullet to solve the problem.
The chess clock by chess.com is a great app. It’s what I use for chess.
Reecius wrote: Hey everyone, just as an FYI, the community of ITC event organizers is indeed working on a set of Floor Rules that can be used by any event organizer at their discretion.
It provides a system of guidelines for player conduct and judge responses. It is being actively worked on by over 200 judges all of whom are experienced organizers.
If you are an ITC event organizer and not in the FB group, please email me (don't PM me on Dakka, I haven't checked those in years) and I will be happy to help you out.
Thanks to everyone contributing to this effort as it will help a great deal to standardize tournament play and avoid situations that can cause conflict and controversy. It will also help to recognize and reward exemplary sportsmanship, too!
Are you accepting external input/ideas, Reece?
I was putting something a bit more comprehensive together, but, if you've already got over 200 people doing so i'll probably hold off continuing.
The more the merrier, honestly. We do want to keep it to TOs though as that is who will be using the document but honestly, any reasonable input is welcome.
Reecius wrote: The more the merrier, honestly. We do want to keep it to TOs though as that is who will be using the document but honestly, any reasonable input is welcome.
Reecius wrote: The more the merrier, honestly. We do want to keep it to TOs though as that is who will be using the document but honestly, any reasonable input is welcome.
Crap! That leaves me out of it!
As always, any unreasonable content can be posted to DakkaDakka as per tradition.
Reecius wrote: The more the merrier, honestly. We do want to keep it to TOs though as that is who will be using the document but honestly, any reasonable input is welcome.
Crap! That leaves me out of it!
As always, any unreasonable content can be posted to DakkaDakka as per tradition.
Reecius wrote: Clean slate. That is the only ethical way to handle it.
Once we have some guidelines in place we all agree to, then we can enforce it fairly moving forward.
You can grandfather in existing bans/DQs (within a certain statute of limitations) if patterns of behavior become part of the final document. Breaking your rules or breaking someone else’s is cheating either way, and ignoring the actions taken by TOs between now and then is opening the door for a lot of bad blood within the community since I imagine this policy will take some time to become finalized.
You’re confusing “ethical” with your own definition of “fair”.
I think it's reasonable to not retroactively apply penalties once the doc is out. IF once it's out, it is regularly enforced. It being "official" provides no excuse for not following it, so if folks see it, and implicitly agree to it by signing up for the event (something of a common disclaimer easily added to the registration), then if they still pull their usual crap they deserve the strongest punishment under the rules.
It is unethical to create a rule then go back in time to apply it selectively to individuals who were acting under a different set of rules at that point in time. That undermines the entire point of a rule.
I mean, that is also unfair but it is definitely unethical. If you create a rule you must abide by the rule fairly to all parties or why bother? You break trust. People who agree to participate within the scope of this document need to trust that it will be used fairly.
To grandfather in existing bans in a fair way we'd have to go to literally every event in the ITC in what, the current season? Then, we'd somehow have to fairly and accurately aggregate all of the data on sports issues then we'd have to sift through it and try and determine which issues violate the new document and then apply punishments retroactively and evenly. That's not a realistic, or probably even an achievable goal.
You can't just use the rules to target specific people/teams (even if they happen to be very unpopular at the moment) as then your rule is an excuse to attack someone, not an actual rule worth abiding by.
I fully understand that many folks are on the warpath against specific teams right now, however, if we want to do this correctly we have to do it in an ethical (and as you noted, fair) manner to build trust or--as I stated above--why bother?
If folks don't abide by the code of ethics going forward then they know what they're getting themselves in to and they will receive appropriate repercussions with no excuses or room to argue that they are being treated in a biased or unfair manner. And, the rest of the community can have the peace of mind of knowing that we did things the right way. Rest assured that anyone that continues to conduct themselves in an unsporting manner is just tying their own rope. You just have to sit back and let them do it. Those that decide to clean up their act can do so and hey, that is also a win for the community.
Plus, what we're building in to this is not just a system of punishment, I really don't want everyone to focus on that as that's not the big picture. We also want to recognize great sportsmen and women and put the spotlight on all the awesome, nice people that play, too.
Anyway, a bit long winded there, but hopefully that explains things a bit better.
I always thought the prize support should be given to best sport and best army while the trophy goes to best general. You still get your glory for victories but there is no monetary value for it. For example, winning the ITC season currently rewards a player with a lot of cash if I am not mistaken, maybe add a sportsmanship rubric in addition to battle points that is tracked publicly as well and give the money to the overall best sport at the end of the year. Incentivizing winning alone is a terrible thing, as has been demonstrated it encourages more gamesmanship including poor play and less sportsmanship. Best general should play for bragging rights only, which admittedly should be tough since we already recognize Franky as the best player in the world
Clear cut cheating should be delt with swiftly, severely and publicly. I am not advocating caning and zero forgiveness for things like illegal lists, but trophys should be removed and the person should be in-elligable to win ITC points for the remainder of that year. They can still attend future events so long as this doesn't become a pattern, they just have to focus on the other elements of the hobby for the rest of the season. This lets them continue to be a member of the community and forces them to grow.
If they cheat blatantly or cross the line for the event I think the punishment should be much more severe.
Great to see and hear that you folks are not ignoring positive sportsmanship in this endeavor.
Red Corsair wrote: I always thought the prize support should be given to best sport and best army while the trophy goes to best general. You still get your glory for victories but there is no monetary value for it. For example, winning the ITC season currently rewards a player with a lot of cash if I am not mistaken, maybe add a sportsmanship rubric in addition to battle points that is tracked publicly as well and give the money to the overall best sport at the end of the year. Incentivizing winning alone is a terrible thing, as has been demonstrated it encourages more gamesmanship including poor play and less sportsmanship. Best general should play for bragging rights only, which admittedly should be tough since we already recognize Franky as the best player in the world
Clear cut cheating should be delt with swiftly, severely and publicly. I am not advocating caning and zero forgiveness for things like illegal lists, but trophys should be removed and the person should be in-elligable to win ITC points for the remainder of that year. They can still attend future events so long as this doesn't become a pattern, they just have to focus on the other elements of the hobby for the rest of the season. This lets them continue to be a member of the community and forces them to grow.
If they cheat blatantly or cross the line for the event I think the punishment should be much more severe.
Great to see and hear that you folks are not ignoring positive sportsmanship in this endeavor.
The moment there is monetary rewards for best sportsmanship you get people that will give their opponent a bad score while trying to extract a high score for themselves rather then people actually trying to have a good time.
The 40k competitive community is really laser-focused on intent when it comes to cheating, so people will always argue if it's "clear-cut" or not. Did you mean to change that wound die? Did you just forget you were using wargear you didn't pay for? Did you really mean stall when you took 60 minutes deploying a small Eldar army?
Personally, I think this is misguided because the practical effect is that cheaters can hide behind intent and escape punishment because "we can't really be sure" they were cheating.
@Reece - while that sounds good, it's not like certain players and teams aren't coming as a known quantity with a history of bad behavior. As a private entity, you are free to start them off with a prior warning, or simply disinvite them as a matter of course based on actual behavior to date.
Are you of the actual opinion that their behavior warrants no penalty before your new code goes into effect?
Ordana wrote: The moment there is monetary rewards for best sportsmanship you get people that will give their opponent a bad score while trying to extract a high score for themselves rather then people actually trying to have a good time.
Seriously (not serious), it's like you're asserting that players would approach the tourney like they're archons plotting the over throw of a rival.
I won my fair share of Best Sports, like 10 or so for RTTs, over 3 years or so, and no. It's not like that at all. Your assertion is the antithesis of players who earn these awards.
There is a belief among some 40k players that all tournament players are inherently immoral. And it is just a matter of time before their masks slip enough to reveal the rotten truth.
That might be somewhat true for the really competitive guys that get the publicity, but the guys who come in for fun and play the bottom tables are almost always nice guys
It is unethical to create a rule then go back in time to apply it selectively to individuals who were acting under a different set of rules at that point in time. That undermines the entire point of a rule.
I mean, that is also unfair but it is definitely unethical. If you create a rule you must abide by the rule fairly to all parties or why bother? You break trust. People who agree to participate within the scope of this document need to trust that it will be used fairly.
To grandfather in existing bans in a fair way we'd have to go to literally every event in the ITC in what, the current season? Then, we'd somehow have to fairly and accurately aggregate all of the data on sports issues then we'd have to sift through it and try and determine which issues violate the new document and then apply punishments retroactively and evenly. That's not a realistic, or probably even an achievable goal.
You can't just use the rules to target specific people/teams (even if they happen to be very unpopular at the moment) as then your rule is an excuse to attack someone, not an actual rule worth abiding by.
I fully understand that many folks are on the warpath against specific teams right now, however, if we want to do this correctly we have to do it in an ethical (and as you noted, fair) manner to build trust or--as I stated above--why bother?
If folks don't abide by the code of ethics going forward then they know what they're getting themselves in to and they will receive appropriate repercussions with no excuses or room to argue that they are being treated in a biased or unfair manner. And, the rest of the community can have the peace of mind of knowing that we did things the right way. Rest assured that anyone that continues to conduct themselves in an unsporting manner is just tying their own rope. You just have to sit back and let them do it. Those that decide to clean up their act can do so and hey, that is also a win for the community.
Plus, what we're building in to this is not just a system of punishment, I really don't want everyone to focus on that as that's not the big picture. We also want to recognize great sportsmen and women and put the spotlight on all the awesome, nice people that play, too.
Anyway, a bit long winded there, but hopefully that explains things a bit better.
Yeah, there's really no way to make it retroactive and punitively punish people under a system of rules that they didn't agree to beforehand. The only way to go forward is to have a clean slate and go forward from there.
That being said, some of the worst people involved in the tournament scene are pretty well known at this point. My suggestion would be for anyone who ends up playing them in a tournament setting to watch them like a hawk from here on out, and possibly request a judge to babysit those games (And given the stormcloud of drama that seems to follow these individuals, one would hope that tournament judges would be happy to do so, to nip things in the bud early and avoid a cloud of drama tarnishing their event. Or maybe TO's could even take the initiative and assign judges to their tables at all times. That seems like the best option, to avoid the "big story" coming out of your tournament being yet another cheating scandal). If they play fair, then great. It'd be interesting to see if they can still win without cheating, because as far as I'm concerned, all their previous victories are now suspect. But if they don't, then anyone who plays them needs to make sure to let the judges and TO's know that their opponent stepped out of line so they can be dealt with according to the rules.
Chief Librarian Mephiston wrote: Yeah, there's really no way to make it retroactive and punitively punish people under a system of rules that they didn't agree to beforehand.
Disagree. Known cheaters are still cheaters, and should not be welcome. Taking an illegal list or whatever was still against the rules of the game they were playing, even if no formal punishment was stated at the time. So why should a TO trust a known cheater and invite the cheater to their event?
Chief Librarian Mephiston wrote: Yeah, there's really no way to make it retroactive and punitively punish people under a system of rules that they didn't agree to beforehand.
Disagree. Known cheaters are still cheaters, and should not be welcome. Taking an illegal list or whatever was still against the rules of the game they were playing, even if no formal punishment was stated at the time. So why should a TO trust a known cheater and invite the cheater to their event?
I’m with peregrine on this one, these people cheated and know they did it, they knew the social convention and ignored it purposefully and apparently several times at that.
It actually reminds me of something from another thread where someone claimed a top player had a 94% win ratio, to which another person replied that if that’s the case they are clearly cheating, the team happy scandal now makes me believe this could possibly be true, it throws doubt on EVERY top tourney player and that is the problem.
Ordana wrote: The moment there is monetary rewards for best sportsmanship you get people that will give their opponent a bad score while trying to extract a high score for themselves rather then people actually trying to have a good time.
Seriously (not serious), it's like you're asserting that players would approach the tourney like they're archons plotting the over throw of a rival.
I won my fair share of Best Sports, like 10 or so for RTTs, over 3 years or so, and no. It's not like that at all. Your assertion is the antithesis of players who earn these awards.
Was there significant prize support attached to these awards?
Because yes I agree, they are really fun guys to play with and they are there to have fun. But when you take the prize support from winning and move it to sportsmanship your going to get the dicks who just want to win at all costs involved in a prize that is about the very opposite.
Ordana wrote: Was there significant prize support attached to these awards?
At the local RTT, $15 to $30 store credit depending on how many participants, from as small as 12 guys to 32+. For the last few GTs, a paint kit, BloodBowl sized GW box, some clamp packs.
IMHO, that doesn't seem significant, but then, after 14 years, I have more 40k models and armies than I know what to do with, so I have little incentive to win prizes. I'm in it for glory (bragging rights!), that is, fun. I'm in it for fun.
Ordana wrote: Because yes I agree, they are really fun guys to play with and they are there to have fun. But when you take the prize support from winning and move it to sportsmanship your going to get the dicks who just want to win at all costs involved in a prize that is about the very opposite.
In 6 years of steady tourney participation, I haven't seen it, not for Sportsmandship. The couple WAAC guys** I know are after top prize, not Sports, because top prize yields more ITC points and more store credit.
Care to cite examples you've actually experienced?
**And the ones I have encountered had not shown any consideration about the Sportsmanship prize; it'd been all about winning the Whole Enchilada.
Chief Librarian Mephiston wrote: Yeah, there's really no way to make it retroactive and punitively punish people under a system of rules that they didn't agree to beforehand.
Disagree. Known cheaters are still cheaters, and should not be welcome. Taking an illegal list or whatever was still against the rules of the game they were playing, even if no formal punishment was stated at the time. So why should a TO trust a known cheater and invite the cheater to their event?
People's reputations are not always aligned with the facts of the situation. Take yourself for instance, there are a lot of people who see you as a troll and would love to see you banned. Banning you preemptively based on your reputation would be unfair.
Crimson Devil wrote: People's reputations are not always aligned with the facts of the situation. Take yourself for instance, there are a lot of people who see you as a troll and would love to see you banned. Banning you preemptively based on your reputation would be unfair.
Banning someone based on subjective personal opinions like "trolling" and banning based on documented acts of cheating, some of which the cheater (such as the team that started this thread) admit to doing, are two very different things. I'm not advocating bans based on vague and unproven things like "everyone knows they're TFG", I'm talking about cases where people were caught on camera or cheated with illegal lists or similar. Cases where the proof is clear and the only defense for allowing the cheater to continue playing is that their cheating happened under a different set of tournament rules.
Chief Librarian Mephiston wrote: Yeah, there's really no way to make it retroactive and punitively punish people under a system of rules that they didn't agree to beforehand.
Disagree. Known cheaters are still cheaters, and should not be welcome. Taking an illegal list or whatever was still against the rules of the game they were playing, even if no formal punishment was stated at the time. So why should a TO trust a known cheater and invite the cheater to their event?
People's reputations are not always aligned with the facts of the situation. Take yourself for instance, there are a lot of people who see you as a troll and would love to see you banned. Banning you preemptively based on your reputation would be unfair.
<REMOVED - RULE #1 PLEASE>
Except, it's not at all unfair to disinvite known cheaters. We saw that Team Happy cheats and are tools when they play, so why not pre-emptively ban them? What value do they bring to the event? If anything, they make the gameplay worse for the 4 or 5 other teams that have the misfortune of playing against them.
Nothing about a go-forward Tournament Code prevents the TOs from perma-banning Team Happy based on their track record to date, any more than placing on a "zero tolerance" standing in the last event. Why protect the bad 20% to hurt the good 80%? How is that fair?
Applying a clean slate when a new “code of conduct” drops is a five-year-old’s definition of fair, and equivalent to saying that if a new law came out regarding stealing everyone serving time or awaiting trial for stealing has their sentence commuted and charges dropped.
I won’t get too pedantic, but “Ethics” is a lot more complex than mere “fairness”.
HappyTony wrote: Tony, captain of Team Happy, here to address the issues from this year’s ATC and formally suggest a competitive tournament code of conduct. First, I want to apologize for my team’s shortcomings. We did accidentally use a plasma pistol that was not included in the army list. We did have a heated conversation during a contentious game. We did have several converted models that had not been approved before the event.
Several other top teams also had similar issues at the ATC. As captain of Team Happy I am ultimately responsible for my team’s conduct and again admit that we were a part of this group. I did not protest our punishment, even as it changed in response to petitions and lobbying from other teams. Our only request to the T.O.s of ATC is that we be treated fairly and in line with the other teams and that they do not give in to the targeted efforts of this very small group of toxic individuals.
To show our commitment to moving the community in a positive direction, we are suggesting the following rules of conduct are put in place by T.O.s across the competitive landscape for all events. Most importantly, we urge that that they are applied evenly and consistently across all participants, and not used as a tool of intimidation by those who have a louder voice or a larger platform.
1. If a list is found to be over the allotted number of points, the participant receives an automatic disqualification.
2. If a participant is found to be using an unapproved conversion, the model is removed for the remainder of the event and the participant must play points down.
3. If a participant is found to be using a non WYSIWYG model, the model is removed for the remainder of the event and the participant must play points down.
These rules represent the start of a more comprehensive list. We also recommend that an affidavit of completion/validity is added to the score sheet and that both players are required to sign verifying that the game was played fairly and that the results are valid.
Team Happy feels that the tournament scene and the hobby are better off with a clearly and evenly applied set of rules. We are committed to the above rules moving forward and will do our best to bring the competitive scene out of the dark place that it has been dragged to.
We hope that T.O.s across the country incorporate these suggestions into their tournament packets so that all participants can have confidence that they will be treated fairly. I am committed to personally embodying these ideals moving forward.
Well said Tony, it takes a brave person to come forward and admit your flaws. I agree with your suggestions and hope that TO's adopt them. Don't let the toxic elements of this community hold you down.
Fresh Faced New User. While I applaud your third post and Tony's first (Welcome to dakka), the "toxic" environment doesn't seem to be as much here as surrounding the tournament tables of certain repeat offenders. So, introspection would be where I would start if in his shoes rather than suggesting rules that his team, clearly, did not already abide by. This is a game of toys to be played between gentlemen. He has little footing on which to suggest rules. Rule number one is "Don't be ungentlemanly." Number two "Don't Cheat."
greyknight12 wrote: Applying a clean slate when a new “code of conduct” drops is a five-year-old’s definition of fair, and equivalent to saying that if a new law came out regarding stealing everyone serving time or awaiting trial for stealing has their sentence commuted and charges dropped.
I won’t get too pedantic, but “Ethics” is a lot more complex than mere “fairness”.
Reecius said that a clean slate would be applied in response to a question about whether penalties would be applied for LVO / ATC. I'm not 100%, but that sounds to me more like "we won't retroactively apply rules to tournaments held before the rules were defined" rather than "existing penalties applied under the rules of prior tournaments will be ignored."
It is not reasonable to apply penalties retroactively for actions taken before the rules were defined. You can't set up a law saying that jeans are illegal then arrest people for wearing jeans before the law even came into force.
Aelyn wrote:
Reecius said that a clean slate would be applied in response to a question about whether penalties would be applied for LVO / ATC. I'm not 100%, but that sounds to me more like "we won't retroactively apply rules to tournaments held before the rules were defined" rather than "existing penalties applied under the rules of prior tournaments will be ignored."
I interpreted this:
Reecius wrote:Clean slate. That is the only ethical way to handle it.
Once we have some guidelines in place we all agree to, then we can enforce it fairly moving forward.
As "we are wiping the slate clean once this code of conduct is in place", which is supported by his exposition on it later.
Aelyn wrote:It is not reasonable to apply penalties retroactively for actions taken before the rules were defined. You can't set up a law saying that jeans are illegal then arrest people for wearing jeans before the law even came into force.
Your example is flawed; in 40K wearing jeans has ALWAYS been ilegal. The penalties may be changing somewhat, but cheating has always been against at least a "common law" understanding of 40K rules.
You can still apply sanctions given under previous rules, in fact you could argue that wiping away previously earned punishments is unfair to the TOs who administred them and the players who now have to play known cheaters. I simply want it to be something under consideration rather than immediately dissmissed with a hand wave. A few reasons why:
1. There are more tournaments than just ATC and LVO, and they range from local store games to mid-sized regionals. After LGT and ATC, TOs are probably going to be keeping a closer eye on cheating and if something happens they need to be empowered to take action if they feel the need and have it respected by the community at large. Now you can say "but it's their tournament, they can do what they want"...but that's what Reece is saying he cannot do for his tournaments in the interest of "fairness".
2. How is a game against someone who had their "slate" wiped going to go? If I know that I'm going against someone who was known to cheat, I'm going to ask for every rules reference and hawk their every move...probably call a judge over if I suspect anything at all. There will be a lot of undue drama at every game, and more cause the rest of their victories are now suspect even if it's just a local player that's known to cheat. I'm not nationally ranked or known at all, but I've played Alex Fennel and Tony Kopach at NOVA and Justin Curtis this last LVO...what happens if someone like Peregrine gets paired first round with Tony?
3. Players have been calling on TOs to do something about cheating, be it illegal lists or misused rules for quite some time now. Using the rules implementation to potentially give certain players a free pass reeks of protection regardless of intent. Perception is reality.
Another reason why all this matters, beyond having a sense of "fairness" at tournaments is that in 40K there is no upward mobility. Yesterday the winner of the women's 50M backstroke at the US Swimming Championships said "you could be here someday", in basketball we talk about if Lebron James is the next Michael Jordan and in football we analyze the potential of each draft pick. But in competitive 40K, we're told that the current "top players" are the best and we can't possibly hope to compete at their level or understand their awesome play skills. But just like Lance Armstrong finally getting caught (after a lot of people saying how great a guy he was), the integrity of some of their skill is thrown into question. And if cheating is allowed to pervade 40K, and it's not a fair matchup, then the entire premise of competitive 40K ceases to exist.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Except, it's not at all unfair to disinvite known cheaters. We saw that Team Happy cheats and are tools when they play, so why not pre-emptively ban them? What value do they bring to the event? If anything, they make the gameplay worse for the 4 or 5 other teams that have the misfortune of playing against them.
Nothing about a go-forward Tournament Code prevents the TOs from perma-banning Team Happy based on their track record to date, any more than placing on a "zero tolerance" standing in the last event. Why protect the bad 20% to hurt the good 80%? How is that fair?
The plasma pistol thing seems pretty egregious to me. Nobody gives their commanders a plasma pistol. Long-time tournament players, and serious players at that, certainly aren't going to. A modeled plasma pistol who doesn't pay for it and tries to sneak it by is just blatant, they know what they are doing 100%.
NOBODY writes "Company commander, Kurov's Aquila, laspistol" and then conveniently forgets and thinks that he took an expensive pistol that nobody would ever use. If I am expecting any random opponent I face to have 3 colors minimum and everything modeled, I don't get how a Veteran can mess such a thing up.
ph34r wrote: The plasma pistol thing seems pretty egregious to me. Nobody gives their commanders a plasma pistol. Long-time tournament players, and serious players at that, certainly aren't going to. A modeled plasma pistol who doesn't pay for it and tries to sneak it by is just blatant, they know what they are doing 100%.
To be fair, now that plasma pistols have a much more reasonable cost in 8th edition there's an argument for taking them. What happened in the specific incident was still obviously cheating, but it doesn't mean that the presence of a plasma pistol is automatically suspicious.
ph34r wrote: The plasma pistol thing seems pretty egregious to me. Nobody gives their commanders a plasma pistol. Long-time tournament players, and serious players at that, certainly aren't going to. A modeled plasma pistol who doesn't pay for it and tries to sneak it by is just blatant, they know what they are doing 100%.
To be fair, now that plasma pistols have a much more reasonable cost in 8th edition there's an argument for taking them. What happened in the specific incident was still obviously cheating, but it doesn't mean that the presence of a plasma pistol is automatically suspicious.
I run a Plaspistol on my jump Chappy and 4 in a LT lead assault squad (Lt, Sgt, 2 marines). All paid for and modelled.
JohnHwangDD wrote: The shocking thing is how hard guys like Reece are bending over to support cheaters. I thought he was better than that.
Wow.
*sigh*
JHDD, have you even *met* the guy, let alone attended an event he runs? Or are you just going off what you read on the forums?
I have met the guy. Have had drinks with him. Talked. Only a twice or thrice a year, for 6 years. We aren't friends, but we're friendly. May I humbly suggest you get to know someone before making a statement like that?
JohnHwangDD wrote: The shocking thing is how hard guys like Reece are bending over to support cheaters. I thought he was better than that.
Wow.
*sigh*
JHDD, have you even *met* the guy, let alone attended an event he runs? Or are you just going off what you read on the forums?
I have met the guy. Have had drinks with him. Talked. Only a twice or thrice a year, for 6 years. We aren't friends, but we're friendly. May I humbly suggest you get to know someone before making a statement like that?
I have interacted with Reece many times over many years, and my impression of him has been very favorable. Until his most recent post in this thread, where he suggested that Team Happy (to Cheat!) gets to start over with a clean slate, suffering zero consequences from their recent ejection from the most recent tournament. To allow them to continue from zero, is unfair to everyone who would have expected more serious consequences based on their most recent behavior. That's fethed up, and I would be happy to buy Reece a beer and tell that to his face, straight up. That's why I said I thought he was better than that.
Let's be clear that the lack of a any current set of guidelines means that they can do whatever the feth they want to punish Team Happy. They aren't beholden to follow any process whatsoever. And they're a private entity, so there is no need to even provide the illusion of due process. That's why I noted that persons like Peregrine (or myself) can be outright banned for trivial things that have nothing to do with any of their events.
Hopefully, Reece will clarify things and do right by everyone who didn't deliberately cheat their opponents.
JohnHwangDD wrote: The shocking thing is how hard guys like Reece are bending over to support cheaters. I thought he was better than that.
Wow.
*sigh*
JHDD, have you even *met* the guy, let alone attended an event he runs? Or are you just going off what you read on the forums?
I have met the guy. Have had drinks with him. Talked. Only a twice or thrice a year, for 6 years. We aren't friends, but we're friendly. May I humbly suggest you get to know someone before making a statement like that?
I have interacted with Reece many times over many years, and my impression of him has been very favorable. Until his most recent post in this thread, where he suggested that Team Happy (to Cheat!) gets to start over with a clean slate, suffering zero consequences from their recent ejection from the most recent tournament. To allow them to continue from zero, is unfair to everyone who would have expected more serious consequences based on their most recent behavior. That's fethed up, and I would be happy to buy Reece a beer and tell that to his face, straight up. That's why I said I thought he was better than that.
Let's be clear that the lack of a any current set of guidelines means that they can do whatever the feth they want to punish Team Happy. They aren't beholden to follow any process whatsoever. And they're a private entity, so there is no need to even provide the illusion of due process. That's why I noted that persons like Peregrine (or myself) can be outright banned for trivial things that have nothing to do with any of their events.
Hopefully, Reece will clarify things and do right by everyone who didn't deliberately cheat their opponents.
Instead of beating up Reece on the subject...how about this. Let the ATC come forward and let everyone know how they are going to deal with Team Happy for next year.
Lets hold the guys who run LVO,BAO, Adepticon and NOVA responsible for an event they dont have anything to do with.... i mean really ?!
If you want answers on how Teams are going to be delt with at Team events...ask ATC because as far as i know...its the only big Team event in the states worth talking about.
JohnHwangDD wrote: The shocking thing is how hard guys like Reece are bending over to support cheaters. I thought he was better than that.
Wow.
*sigh*
JHDD, have you even *met* the guy, let alone attended an event he runs? Or are you just going off what you read on the forums?
I have met the guy. Have had drinks with him. Talked. Only a twice or thrice a year, for 6 years. We aren't friends, but we're friendly. May I humbly suggest you get to know someone before making a statement like that?
I have interacted with Reece many times over many years, and my impression of him has been very favorable. Until his most recent post in this thread, where he suggested that Team Happy (to Cheat!) gets to start over with a clean slate, suffering zero consequences from their recent ejection from the most recent tournament. To allow them to continue from zero, is unfair to everyone who would have expected more serious consequences based on their most recent behavior. That's fethed up, and I would be happy to buy Reece a beer and tell that to his face, straight up. That's why I said I thought he was better than that.
Let's be clear that the lack of a any current set of guidelines means that they can do whatever the feth they want to punish Team Happy. They aren't beholden to follow any process whatsoever. And they're a private entity, so there is no need to even provide the illusion of due process. That's why I noted that persons like Peregrine (or myself) can be outright banned for trivial things that have nothing to do with any of their events.
Hopefully, Reece will clarify things and do right by everyone who didn't deliberately cheat their opponents.
Instead of beating up Reece on the subject...how about this. Let the ATC come forward and let everyone know how they are going to deal with Team Happy for next year.
Lets hold the guys who run LVO,BAO, Adepticon and NOVA responsible for an event they dont have anything to do with.... i mean really ?!
If you want answers on how Teams are going to be delt with at Team events...ask ATC because as far as i know...its the only big Team event in the states worth talking about.
Nobody forced Reece to post in this thread, but he did it anyways. It's not unreasonable to react to what he posted. Favorably, or not.
JohnHwangDD wrote: The shocking thing is how hard guys like Reece are bending over to support cheaters. I thought he was better than that.
Wow.
*sigh*
JHDD, have you even *met* the guy, let alone attended an event he runs? Or are you just going off what you read on the forums?
I have met the guy. Have had drinks with him. Talked. Only a twice or thrice a year, for 6 years. We aren't friends, but we're friendly. May I humbly suggest you get to know someone before making a statement like that?
I have interacted with Reece many times over many years, and my impression of him has been very favorable. Until his most recent post in this thread, where he suggested that Team Happy (to Cheat!) gets to start over with a clean slate, suffering zero consequences from their recent ejection from the most recent tournament. To allow them to continue from zero, is unfair to everyone who would have expected more serious consequences based on their most recent behavior. That's fethed up, and I would be happy to buy Reece a beer and tell that to his face, straight up. That's why I said I thought he was better than that.
Let's be clear that the lack of a any current set of guidelines means that they can do whatever the feth they want to punish Team Happy. They aren't beholden to follow any process whatsoever. And they're a private entity, so there is no need to even provide the illusion of due process. That's why I noted that persons like Peregrine (or myself) can be outright banned for trivial things that have nothing to do with any of their events.
Hopefully, Reece will clarify things and do right by everyone who didn't deliberately cheat their opponents.
Instead of beating up Reece on the subject...how about this. Let the ATC come forward and let everyone know how they are going to deal with Team Happy for next year.
Lets hold the guys who run LVO,BAO, Adepticon and NOVA responsible for an event they dont have anything to do with.... i mean really ?!
If you want answers on how Teams are going to be delt with at Team events...ask ATC because as far as i know...its the only big Team event in the states worth talking about.
Nobody forced Reece to post in this thread, but he did it anyways. It's not unreasonable to react to what he posted. Favorably, or not.
Reacting to a guys post is one thing but....
"The shocking thing is how hard guys like Reece are bending over to support cheaters. I thought he was better than that."
....thats attacking the guys character and pretty much undeserved.
JohnHwangDD wrote: The shocking thing is how hard guys like Reece are bending over to support cheaters. I thought he was better than that.
Wow.
*sigh*
JHDD, have you even *met* the guy, let alone attended an event he runs? Or are you just going off what you read on the forums?
I have met the guy. Have had drinks with him. Talked. Only a twice or thrice a year, for 6 years. We aren't friends, but we're friendly. May I humbly suggest you get to know someone before making a statement like that?
I have interacted with Reece many times over many years, and my impression of him has been very favorable. Until his most recent post in this thread, where he suggested that Team Happy (to Cheat!) gets to start over with a clean slate, suffering zero consequences from their recent ejection from the most recent tournament. To allow them to continue from zero, is unfair to everyone who would have expected more serious consequences based on their most recent behavior. That's fethed up, and I would be happy to buy Reece a beer and tell that to his face, straight up. That's why I said I thought he was better than that.
Let's be clear that the lack of a any current set of guidelines means that they can do whatever the feth they want to punish Team Happy. They aren't beholden to follow any process whatsoever. And they're a private entity, so there is no need to even provide the illusion of due process. That's why I noted that persons like Peregrine (or myself) can be outright banned for trivial things that have nothing to do with any of their events.
Hopefully, Reece will clarify things and do right by everyone who didn't deliberately cheat their opponents.
Instead of beating up Reece on the subject...how about this. Let the ATC come forward and let everyone know how they are going to deal with Team Happy for next year.
Lets hold the guys who run LVO,BAO, Adepticon and NOVA responsible for an event they dont have anything to do with.... i mean really ?!
If you want answers on how Teams are going to be delt with at Team events...ask ATC because as far as i know...its the only big Team event in the states worth talking about.
Nobody forced Reece to post in this thread, but he did it anyways. It's not unreasonable to react to what he posted. Favorably, or not.
Reacting to a guys post is one thing but....
"The shocking thing is how hard guys like Reece are bending over to support cheaters. I thought he was better than that."
....thats attacking the guys character and pretty much undeserved.
Reece said they would be rolling back to zero, rather than holding the zero tolerance that they were already at, with zero consequences going forward. Team Happy appears to be getting a pass for blatant cheating, with their past history getting wiped clean. How else do you interpret that as anything other than supporting known cheaters?
They were DQ's from a major event, name dragged through the mud, and facing a near total loss of face in the entire community. They aren't exactly getting a pass.
djones520 wrote: They were DQ's from a major event, name dragged through the mud, and facing a near total loss of face in the entire community. They aren't exactly getting a pass.
Except that it appears they'll be free to do it again next time. Zero go-forward consequences. Not even double-secret probation.
djones520 wrote: They were DQ's from a major event, name dragged through the mud, and facing a near total loss of face in the entire community. They aren't exactly getting a pass.
Except that it appears they'll be free to do it again next time. Zero go-forward consequences. Not even double-secret probation.
And ATC still hasn't made an announcement if they'll be banned or not. It was an ATC infraction, so it's their call. Reece's only roll for that event is as a participant player.
Reece gave a clear and reasonable explanation why no one would be subject to sactions for past behavior under a new system that hasn’t even been completed or implemented.
Is it reasonable to punish people under rules that did not exist when the infraction occurred? Most people would say no.
It's reasonable to punish people for bad behavior. If there's a new framework, and they haven't yet been punished, then apply that new framework. Or simply drop the hammer. That works, too.
alextroy wrote: Reece gave a clear and reasonable explanation why no one would be subject to sactions for past behavior under a new system that hasn’t even been completed or implemented.
Is it reasonable to punish people under rules that did not exist when the infraction occurred? Most people would say no.
What people have you been hanging with?
So your telling me the worlds first murderer should have walked free on the technicality that laws weren't in existence, and your justification would be ethics? Which ethics? Is it more ethical to allow certain people extra chances despite new rules being required because of their behavior? Extra chances after they have already negatively impacted other innocent gamers?
I guess it was unethical to lock up the worlds first murderer because there was no rule about not doing that. I mean, we want to protect folks, but we also don't want to be unfair and catch him off guard with some new rule right? Or how about the worlds first bank robber? Wasn't he just gaming the system so it worked for him until some spoil sport had to create a new rule about that? Some people in here have a really crappy sense of ethics lol. What sick sense of justice concerns itself with the guilty over the protection of the innocent?
Lets be clear here, we aren't talking about new rules added to a games mechanics. We are talking about those pesky golden rules grandma always hounded you over. You know the unwritten social fabric, respect and common decency. How the feth is it moving the post to expect basic manners from guests at an event? So we are rules lawyering etiquette now? Willfully misleading an opponent to take advantage of them, to lie, break trust. This is what occurred, and while I appreciate there not being one governing arm that has the authority to ban certain bad apples, there is a massive little thing known as leading be example. "Hey guys, we can't tell you how to run your events, but these guys are not going to be allowed at any event we run because they demonstrated they cannot be trusted, balls in your court." Not we think everyone should get a clean slate going forward as it's somehow ethical.
I guess whats done is done though, I'd suggest anyone at an event that recognizes said actors should warn any and all their opponents and make sure a judge is handy because they certainly wouldn't have my trust, and frankly I'd be more then a bit pissed off after paying thousands to attend an event only to draw a known cheater.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnHwangDD wrote: It's reasonable to punish people for bad behavior. If there's a new framework, and they haven't yet been punished, then apply that new framework. Or simply drop the hammer. That works, too.
alextroy wrote: Reece gave a clear and reasonable explanation why no one would be subject to sactions for past behavior under a new system that hasn’t even been completed or implemented.
Is it reasonable to punish people under rules that did not exist when the infraction occurred? Most people would say no.
What people have you been hanging with?
So your telling me the worlds first murderer should have walked free on the technicality that laws weren't in existence, and your justification would be ethics? Which ethics? Is it more ethical to allow certain people extra chances despite new rules being required because of their behavior? Extra chances after they have already negatively impacted other innocent gamers?
I guess it was unethical to lock up the worlds first murderer because there was no rule about not doing that. I mean, we want to protect folks, but we also don't want to be unfair and catch him off guard with some new rule right? Or how about the worlds first bank robber? Wasn't he just gaming the system so it worked for him until some spoil sport had to create a new rule about that? Some people in here have a really crappy sense of ethics lol. What sick sense of justice concerns itself with the guilty over the protection of the innocent?
Lets be clear here, we aren't talking about new rules added to a games mechanics. We are talking about those pesky golden rules grandma always hounded you over. You know the unwritten social fabric, respect and common decency. How the feth is it moving the post to expect basic manners from guests at an event? So we are rules lawyering etiquette now? Willfully misleading an opponent to take advantage of them, to lie, break trust. This is what occurred, and while I appreciate there not being one governing arm that has the authority to ban certain bad apples, there is a massive little thing known as leading be example. "Hey guys, we can't tell you how to run your events, but these guys are not going to be allowed at any event we run because they demonstrated they cannot be trusted, balls in your court." Not we think everyone should get a clean slate going forward as it's somehow ethical.
I guess whats done is done though, I'd suggest anyone at an event that recognizes said actors should warn any and all their opponents and make sure a judge is handy because they certainly wouldn't have my trust, and frankly I'd be more then a bit pissed off after paying thousands to attend an event only to draw a known cheater.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnHwangDD wrote: It's reasonable to punish people for bad behavior. If there's a new framework, and they haven't yet been punished, then apply that new framework. Or simply drop the hammer. That works, too.
Said far more concisely then myself,
wait... did you actually just equate shooting a Phantom Plasma pistol in a table top game with Murder ?!
But the point is valid. Equating cheating at a game, pushing the boundaries of sportsmanship, and not clearing some proxy models with murder is ridiculous. There is a difference between being a jerk and being a murderer.
For jerks, it is perfectly reasonable to put them, with the rest of the community, on notice that these are the new rules for conduct and there will be repercussions for violating them.
No need to drop some random BanHammer on them because some people have decided they are jerks. Either they are boundary pushers who will shape up, or they are irredeemable jerks who won't be able to help themselves and will be quickly sorted out by the new rules.
I can see a case for a ban since they have repeatedly cheated at more than one event in a relatively short period of time. A ban would send a message to all potential cheaters - this type of behavior won’t be let off the hook any longer.
Red Corsair wrote: I was using an extreme example intentionally to point how flawed the response was.
Using a fallacy to point out a fallacy ... *sigh* That's not how arguments and debate work. <------ someone will point out, "But that's how the internet works, man."
Red Corsair wrote: I am pointing out the pink elephant in the room and your hung up on it being pink...
Are you trying to avoid my point by getting hung up on semantics now?
That wasn't semantics, that was equating the crime of homicide with cheating at 40k.
Instead, just apply and argue the mechanics of the 'grand father' clause, because that's where this discussion is presently at. What's good about a 'grandfather' clause and what's bad about it? Applied to the case of notorious, cheating, or WAAC douches, in 40k ?
alextroy wrote: No need to drop some random BanHammer on them because some people have decided they are jerks.
It is not a case of "some people have decided they are jerks". It's a case of clear, documented cheating. And if a player has demonstrated that they are willing to cheat why should they be allowed to continue playing? The "but we didn't threaten them with banning yet so we can't ban them" excuse is pathetic. There is no need to give a warning, ban them and be done with it.
alextroy wrote: No need to drop some random BanHammer on them because some people have decided they are jerks.
It is not a case of "some people have decided they are jerks". It's a case of clear, documented cheating. And if a player has demonstrated that they are willing to cheat why should they be allowed to continue playing? The "but we didn't threaten them with banning yet so we can't ban them" excuse is pathetic. There is no need to give a warning, ban them and be done with it.
Yep, otherwise it sets a bad precedent and others will simply cheat with the knowledge that if caught they will only get a slap on the wrist.
alextroy wrote: For jerks, it is perfectly reasonable to put them, with the rest of the community, on notice that these are the new rules for conduct and there will be repercussions for violating them.
No need to drop some random BanHammer on them because some people have decided they are jerks. Either they are boundary pushers who will shape up, or they are irredeemable jerks who won't be able to help themselves and will be quickly sorted out by the new rules.
So essentially, giving them one more chance and taking the risk that they'll wreck one more event vs the chance that they'll start playing fair? I can see that, but who would want to risk their event being the one that gets dragged through the mud?
zedsdead wrote: wait... did you actually just equate shooting a Phantom Plasma pistol in a table top game with Murder ?!
The US operates off the principle of "do it till it's illegal" and look at us right now.
At the minimum I'd say they should be down a fair number of strikes and if it comes down to more accusations of cheating that are easily verified they're just booted and banned.
Less reasonably I'd say give them a Judge who rides them around with a saddle verifying their lists and actions and see how they perform under the actual rules.
In theory most of these rules have been there for a long time, it's just that these guys have gotten used to bending or breaking them as they see fit. Something has to be done to make it perfectly clear to them that they need to stop with that.
Anyone who chooses to take their money when they signup for the event. Individual organizers are free to take action independent of any collective action.
YeOldSaltPotato wrote: give them a Judge who rides them around with a saddle verifying their lists and actions and see how they perform under the actual rules.
If a TO have to dedicate a Judge to babysitting a group of known cheaters to ensure that they don't cheat (again), that's kind of a big problem right there. Beyond the mechanical business of checking the list, I need a Judge who's familiar with all of their armies and the interactions within. That's a lot of work, and a PITA to manage. Best case, they don't cheat because there's a Judge right there, and I waste someone's valuable time for the entire event. Worst case, they pull a fast one on the Judge, and everyone is up in arms again.
It'd be much, much easier to disinvite them and bar them from entering.
Hence, the attraction of permabanning them from all such events.
YeOldSaltPotato wrote: Something has to be done to make it perfectly clear to them that they need to stop with that.
Permanently banning them from playing anything outside of a local 5-person store "tournament" accomplishes this goal very nicely. They can either stop cheating and take what few gaming opportunities are still available to them, or continue to cheat and find themselves banned from ever playing again. And the example will make it perfectly clear to other potential cheaters that getting caught cheating (and you will get caught eventually) means permanent removal from the game you supposedly enjoy.
Red Corsair wrote:*snip*
So your telling me the worlds first murderer should have walked free on the technicality that laws weren't in existence
*snip*
*snip*
I was using an extreme example intentionally to point how flawed the response was.
*snip*
It wouldn't be a technicality. If he committed the world's first murder (with no laws in place governing "murder", so basically, he killed someone), and then laws were put in place that made murder illegal, and he committed no murders from that point on, he has done nothing wrong (from the legal perspective). Just because you find the act of murder "wrong" doesn't matter, because he has abided by the social contract that is the law. You can't retroactively go back and punish him for an action he made before that action was made illegal.
To frame it in a different perspective, suppose speed limits didn't exist. You could drive at whatever speed you liked. Would it be dangerous? Reckless? Maybe, but there's no law stopping you from doing so, ergo, not illegal. Let's suppose this person regularly drives at 200 km/h.
One day, a new law is put in place that sets the speed limit everywhere at 50 km/h. Your argument would be akin to us punishing the person for having driven over the speed limit in the past, before a law was put in place mandating a defined legal speed limit, because a new law was put in place, even if he drove 50 km/h all the time moving forward.
The issue of jean-wearing was also brought up. Your argument would also mandate that if a law was ever put in place that jean-wearing is now illegal, anybody who has ever worn jeans in the past should be punished because of the new law.
Even in the instance where a law existed in the past, wherein the punishment then gets changed, you can't retroactively issue the new punishment to those who broke the law with the old punishment.
For example, here in Canada, driving 150 km/h+ on the highway (100 km/h speed limit) is typically a $10,000 fine, immediate suspension of your license, and impounding of your vehicle. That's the law, and everybody who breaks that law by exceeding that 150 km/h speed limit does so with the understanding that if caught, those are the punishements.
Lets say, for the sake of argument, that today, we change that punishment. Instead, anybody caught going 150 km/h+ on the highway is immediately executed. Just, dead. Now obviously, nobody would dare exceed that speed limit because the punishment is THAT severe. However, can you really go back and retroactively execute anybody who was caught going 150 km/h+ because of the new law? If they had known that the punishment would have been that severe, would they have sped that excessively?
To flip it on its head, though, let's take a law that was revoked. Prohibition. For a while, it was illegal to sell alcohol, and all those who did were breaking the law. Let's say the punishment if you were caught was a year in prison, and a $10,000 fine. Let's make the argument that, at this moment in time, prohibition laws are in place and it is illegal to sell alcohol, and I am caught selling alcohol. I get fined $10,000, and sent to prison for a year.
However, tomorrow, the prohibition laws get repealed, and it is now legal again to sell alcohol. Should my punishment be retroactively removed as well, because the law has now changed? Of course not! I broke the law, knowing what the punishment was, and must suffer the consequences.
I guess my point is, there was a set of rules and punishments previously. Events will be looking to establish a newer/more universal/more clearly defined set of rules and punishments moving forward. It would be unfair to punish people for past behaviors prior to this new set of rules. Punishments that were laid out under a previous set of rules, however, should still continue to be enforced.
It doesn't matter whether someone exhibited a certain behavior in the past, whether you consider it unethical/immoral, because this person engaged in that behavior under the knowledge of the previous ruleset and the punishments they would incur if they broke those rules and were caught. You enforce the previous punishments. If their continued behavior then breaks the new rules, you levy the new punishment.
JohnHwangDD wrote: In the case of the first murderer, he was cast out and marked. That is all that we are asking - that cheaters be ousted, never to return
Alright - now I 'm getting concerned if you should be at an event - or at least checked for branding irons and whips before entry.
JohnHwangDD wrote: In the case of the first murderer, he was cast out and marked. That is all that we are asking - that cheaters be ousted, never to return
Alright - now I 'm getting concerned if you should be at an event - or at least checked for branding irons and whips before entry.
If you aren't a cheater, you should not have any worries what the penalty might be
JohnHwangDD wrote: In the case of the first murderer, he was cast out and marked. That is all that we are asking - that cheaters be ousted, never to return
Alright - now I 'm getting concerned if you should be at an event - or at least checked for branding irons and whips before entry.
If you aren't a cheater, you should not have any worries what the penalty might be
I think event organizers should be at least a little concerned about physical assault and maiming at an event.
You are just trolling at this point - there's no way you are that one-sided
Question for the people suggesting permanent bans. Assuming that you are banning someone for life for cheating are you doing it to be punitive, to act as a deterrent/warning to others or, in the hopes that the punishment will make the person reform?
If it's punitive then how many strikes for a perma-ban? And, what level of conduct rises to a "strike"? Nudgina a model forward? Mis-adding points on your list (too many points)? Placing an extra model in a unit? Where are the lines drawn?
I'm going to assume the same answer to using the ban as a warning to others.
If you're trying to teach the person a lesson then how does that person prove themselves to have reformed?
This is only a game and conventions are open to the public. It can lead to some messy situations when you ban someone from a public event (either as a participant or an observer). This is especially true when the general public is invited to participate.
If you’re treating this as a sport then bans are there to try and ensure fair play, not to worry about the fate and feelings of the cheater. If a known cheater is permitted to partake and win your sport loses credibility.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: Question for the people suggesting permanent bans. Assuming that you are banning someone for life for cheating are you doing it to be punitive, to act as a deterrent/warning to others or, in the hopes that the punishment will make the person reform?
If it's punitive then how many strikes for a perma-ban? And, what level of conduct rises to a "strike"? Nudgina a model forward? Mis-adding points on your list (too many points)? Placing an extra model in a unit?
If you're trying to teach the person a lesson then how does that person prove themselves to have reformed?
Yes, permaban is punitive. Yes, it's a warning. No, I don't care if that person claims to reform.
Normally, someone would get at least 1 warning, 1 chance, because accidents do happen. A nudge might be forgivable, as tables aren't perfect. But adding extra points, adding extra models, using extra wargear? That's definitely cheating, and should certainly be penalized.
Also, your concern is misplaced. It's not about the cheater, which is why it's permanent. It's actually about everyone else that paid money and time to be at the event, protecting their right to a fair and honest game. If you don't get that, then that's your problem in a nutshell.
Nudging a model forward? Miss-adding points on your list (too many points)? Placing an extra model in a unit? Where are the lines drawn?
What line? this is all 100% cheating.
Also, your concern is misplaced. It's not about the cheater, which is why it's permanent. It's actually about everyone else that paid money and time to be at the event, protecting their right to a fair and honest game. If you don't get that, then that's your problem in a nutshell.
I get it and I'm not really concerned with the "cheating party". I'm concerned about the events themselves. The TOs have to consider the ramifications of their actions. In the US there is always someone out there willing to sue for their "entitlement" or at least cause problems for someone they don't like.
Most, if not all, of the major events are held in public venues are open to the public for participation and viewing. There could be a question of whether a TO can actually prevent someone from attending/participating at that event. There is no question that if the person violates the rules of that event that they can be asked to leave but until that violation occurs then they may have the same right to attend/participate as any other person.
TL/DR It may be impossible to enforce a ban on someone's participation in a public event without a legal restraining order or some such.
I get it and I'm not really concerned with the "cheating party". I'm concerned about the events themselves. The TOs have to consider the ramifications of their actions. In the US there is always someone out there willing to sue for their "entitlement" or at least cause problems for someone they don't like.
Most, if not all, of the major events are held in public venues are open to the public for participation and viewing. There could be a question of whether a TO can actually prevent someone from attending/participating at that event. There is no question that if the person violates the rules of that event that they can be asked to leave but until that violation occurs then they may have the same right to attend/participate as any other person.
TL/DR It may be impossible to enforce a ban on someone's participation in a public event without a legal restraining order or some such.
Yeah, I am pretty sure that 40K gamer is not a protected class in any U.S. Statute and there is no law on the books preventing a private event from not allowing someone to attend.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: It may be impossible to enforce a ban on someone's participation in a public event without a legal restraining order or some such.
Trespassing is a thing, and it doesn't require a restraining order. Lots of private companies permanently ban people from their property and events. Casino is a good example, where they ban legal card counters.
There is a big difference between a company and a public event. In the casino instance most states allow a casino to ban someone by law. Gaming events have no such protection. If you have an event that is open to the public then it is open to all members of the public unless there is a legal reason to deny them access. For instance I can go into a hotel that is hosting an event open to the public and as long as I follow the rules they can't keep me (specifically) out. If there are tickets involved that's another matter.
Let's take the LVO as an example; The TO can refuse to sell me a ticket to an event but, as I understand it, there is an "open gaming" area at the event. The TO can not keep me from playing in that area unless or until I break some rule at that event (and doing something wrong at another event is not pertinent to their actions). If I have been ejected from the event in the past then there may be some basis for the action but then you're probably talking about getting the authorities involved.
All I'm saying is it's not so cut and dry as to being able to enforce a ban from all events. It would be difficult enough to enforce one at the next event a specific that specific TO held let alone some totally different entity.
No, they are not public events. you must buy admission to get on the floor, not just to play in any of the events. Even if that was not the case the organizers are renting the hall it is not public space. It is bought and paid for by them and they do not have to admit you into the space they are paying for. Your problem is thinking they are public events, they are not.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: There is a big difference between a company and a public event. In the casino instance most states allow a casino to ban someone by law. Gaming events have no such protection. If you have an event that is open to the public then it is open to all members of the public unless there is a legal reason to deny them access. For instance I can go into a hotel that is hosting an event open to the public and as long as I follow the rules they can't keep me (specifically) out. If there are tickets involved that's another matter.
Let's take the LVO as an example; The TO can refuse to sell me a ticket to an event but, as I understand it, there is an "open gaming" area at the event. The TO can not keep me from playing in that area unless or until I break some rule at that event (and doing something wrong at another event is not pertinent to their actions). If I have been ejected from the event in the past then there may be some basis for the action but then you're probably talking about getting the authorities involved.
All I'm saying is it's not so cut and dry as to being able to enforce a ban from all events. It would be difficult enough to enforce one at the next event a specific that specific TO held let alone some totally different entity.
Events take place on privately owned property. Citation needed.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: I can go into a hotel that is hosting an event open to the public and as long as I follow the rules they can't keep me (specifically) out.
If you poop on the floor of the hotel lobby, you can and will be perma-banned from every hotel in the system, even though they are otherwise open to the public. If you choose to set foot on premises, you will be arrested for trespassing. For example, you do that at a Holiday Inn Express in Vegas, you'll also be blocked from the Holiday Inn (regular) in bumfeth Idaho. By pooping on the floor, you lost the right to be treated as part of the general public. It's a specific sanction tied to specific behavior, and that kind of thing can, and has been upheld in law.
Heck, there are hotel blacklists for people who are overly critical. People can, and will, be banned simply for what they say.
eBay allows people to block individual buyers for any reason as well, despite otherwise being available to the public.
The idea that a TO can't enforce a blacklist is nonsense.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: I can go into a hotel that is hosting an event open to the public and as long as I follow the rules they can't keep me (specifically) out.
If you poop on the floor of the hotel lobby, you can and will be perma-banned from every hotel in the system, even though they are otherwise open to the public. If you choose to set foot on premises, you will be arrested for trespassing. For example, you do that at a Holiday Inn Express in Vegas, you'll also be blocked from the Holiday Inn (regular) in bumfeth Idaho. By pooping on the floor, you lost the right to be treated as part of the general public. It's a specific sanction tied to specific behavior, and that kind of thing can, and has been upheld in law.
Heck, there are hotel blacklists for people who are overly critical. People can, and will, be banned simply for what they say.
eBay allows people to block individual buyers for any reason as well, despite otherwise being available to the public.
The idea that a TO can't enforce a blacklist is nonsense.
The Hotel can do that because they are a property owner and able to control access per the law. A TO doesn't have that legal privlege unless they own the convention center/FLGS/hotel in question.
A bigger concern is that the ITC is not the kind of hierarchical, top heavy system required to enforce a ban even if they wanted to. People think it's like the MTG majors but in reality it's a packet of free tournament rules and the ability to submit ITC points for website even if your tournament didn't follow the rules in the packet. Reecius could ban you from his events, but that's what - three tournaments? You'd just pop up at the others. Whether or not you are allowed at an event is a completely TO-driven decision.
Nudging a model forward? Miss-adding points on your list (too many points)? Placing an extra model in a unit? Where are the lines drawn?
What line? this is all 100% cheating.
Also, your concern is misplaced. It's not about the cheater, which is why it's permanent. It's actually about everyone else that paid money and time to be at the event, protecting their right to a fair and honest game. If you don't get that, then that's your problem in a nutshell.
It boggles my mind that people don't get this.
Thing is if you start permabanning people for going against game rules even a it you end up soon with no players. 40k is such a mess mistakes happen all the time
Leo_the_Rat wrote: There is a big difference between a company and a public event. In the casino instance most states allow a casino to ban someone by law. Gaming events have no such protection. If you have an event that is open to the public then it is open to all members of the public unless there is a legal reason to deny them access. For instance I can go into a hotel that is hosting an event open to the public and as long as I follow the rules they can't keep me (specifically) out. If there are tickets involved that's another matter.
Let's take the LVO as an example; The TO can refuse to sell me a ticket to an event but, as I understand it, there is an "open gaming" area at the event. The TO can not keep me from playing in that area unless or until I break some rule at that event (and doing something wrong at another event is not pertinent to their actions). If I have been ejected from the event in the past then there may be some basis for the action but then you're probably talking about getting the authorities involved.
All I'm saying is it's not so cut and dry as to being able to enforce a ban from all events. It would be difficult enough to enforce one at the next event a specific that specific TO held let alone some totally different entity.
Nonsense. "Open to the public" does not mean that the organizer must allow anyone in and justify their reasons for a ban in court. Nor is there some list of acceptable reasons that says a history of bad behavior elsewhere is not sufficient and something needs to happen at that specific event. As long as the reason for removing someone does not involve protected classes (race, gender, etc) it's private property and the owner can remove anyone they want. And "this person is a known cheater" is more than enough to establish that the ban is legitimate and not discrimination.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote: Thing is if you start permabanning people for going against game rules even a it you end up soon with no players. 40k is such a mess mistakes happen all the time
There is a difference between a mistake, especially a mistake involving an ambiguous rule with multiple interpretations, and obvious cheating. Bringing an extra plasma pistol is not a mistake that happens because "40k is such a mess", it's either deliberate cheating or a complete lack of concern for following the rules. There is no ambiguity in adding up the point costs for a list. And if players are unable or unwilling to do such basic things correctly then why should they be allowed to play?
alextroy wrote: Reece gave a clear and reasonable explanation why no one would be subject to sactions for past behavior under a new system that hasn’t even been completed or implemented.
Is it reasonable to punish people under rules that did not exist when the infraction occurred? Most people would say no.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: I can go into a hotel that is hosting an event open to the public and as long as I follow the rules they can't keep me (specifically) out.
If you poop on the floor of the hotel lobby, you can and will be perma-banned from every hotel in the system, even though they are otherwise open to the public. If you choose to set foot on premises, you will be arrested for trespassing. For example, you do that at a Holiday Inn Express in Vegas, you'll also be blocked from the Holiday Inn (regular) in bumfeth Idaho. By pooping on the floor, you lost the right to be treated as part of the general public. It's a specific sanction tied to specific behavior, and that kind of thing can, and has been upheld in law.
Heck, there are hotel blacklists for people who are overly critical. People can, and will, be banned simply for what they say.
eBay allows people to block individual buyers for any reason as well, despite otherwise being available to the public.
The idea that a TO can't enforce a blacklist is nonsense.
The Hotel can do that because they are a property owner and able to control access per the law. A TO doesn't have that legal privlege unless they own the convention center/FLGS/hotel in question.
Whether or not you are allowed at an event is a completely TO-driven decision.
A Tournament rents space within the Hotel, and can certainly control access to that space.
eBay doesn't even necessarily charge commission until after the sale is concluded, yet thet Seller can blacklist people - you should address that, too, BTW.
If the TOs decide they should ban someone, they can do so.
As someone who regularly travels to Vegas for business conventions (AKA a convention that rents out a hotel just like a tournament), you can be banned from these or not admitted entry. Arguing that they cannot ban you is simply not true.... whether or not they should is an entirely different discussion
zedsdead wrote: wait... did you actually just equate shooting a Phantom Plasma pistol in a table top game with Murder ?!
The US operates off the principle of "do it till it's illegal" and look at us right now.
At the minimum I'd say they should be down a fair number of strikes and if it comes down to more accusations of cheating that are easily verified they're just booted and banned.
Less reasonably I'd say give them a Judge who rides them around with a saddle verifying their lists and actions and see how they perform under the actual rules.
In theory most of these rules have been there for a long time, it's just that these guys have gotten used to bending or breaking them as they see fit. Something has to be done to make it perfectly clear to them that they need to stop with that.
The starting point of a Ban should start with the Event that the offense took place. Has the ATC taken a stance on what they will do with Team Happy next year ? not that i have heard.. all ive seen is there defense of the actions they took during there event.
Why would the Organizer of another event have to step forward and ban a player if there was the possibility that the ATC wont either ban the team of the offending players ?
If you guys want some sort of action...demand, that the events where offenses take place "Ban" these guys. Then other events can assess and place there own ban. Not the other way around.
Hi ETC head referee here. After some interesting discussions with the Team America boys over the weekend I thought to quickly pop my head i here and give my 2 cents.
I switched from Team Scotland Captain (3rd place this year) to head referee 5 years ago. The reason being that I was sick to my back teeth of players deliberately slow playing, outright cheating, or just generally acting like c*nts to their oppponents (I have been to 11/12 ETCbtw). Moreover I was sick of the referees/judges/TO doing nothing.
So if you want something doing right do it yourself.
In the 5 years since I made the switch there has been a marked improvement in player behaviour at the ETC. Why? Because as anyone who has played 40k at the ETC will tell you; woe betide ANYONE who incurs the wrath of me and my referee team. I will... better yet I HAVE, red carded and excluded players on the spot for cheating, deliberately slow playing on multiple occasions, even for just being a total d*ck to their opponent. A red card means you are gone and you are never coming back. No excuses, no apologies, you were warned and now you are gone.
I could write a whole essay on how to manage player behaviour (I am also a teacher and a qualified international rugby referee - both of which I draw upon when refereeing 40k), but to keep it short it has taken me and my team 5 years of tough love, no nonesense discipline to bring the ETC out of the hole it was falling into. Our work is never done; this year 7 players got yellow carded, which in some cases included we the referees even decided what the score of the game would be (One such case was in a game Team America where we decided the Americans player would have won 18-2 but for deliberate slow play). But compared to 9th Age which is run parallel to 40k at the ETC, I don’t have TEAMS blantnetly cheating and/or being complete c*nts to their opponents GAME after GAME, YEAR after YEAR.
Why? Because I do not tolerate anything except friendly-competitiveness. No ifs, no buts. Don’t like it? Don’t come.
So in short either you as a community get tough like I / we did at the ETC, or this kind of shenanigans and behaviour that has got you all worked up is only going to continue. And judging from the conversations I had with Team America over the weekend this sh*t has to stop.
Tough love boys. Tough love.
Feel free to PM me here or on Facebook (neil kerr) if you want to hear more about how I manage one of the biggest team event so in the world from being ruined by the wrong kind of players.
Skcuzzlebumm wrote: Hi ETC head referee here. After some interesting discussions with the Team America boys over the weekend I thought to quickly pop my head i here and give my 2 cents.
I switched from Team Scotland Captain (3rd place this year) to head referee 5 years ago. The reason being that I was sick to my back teeth of players deliberately slow playing, outright cheating, or just generally acting like c*nts to their oppponents (I have been to 11/12 ETCbtw). Moreover I was sick of the referees/judges/TO doing nothing.
So if you want something doing right do it yourself.
In the 5 years since I made the switch there has been a marked improvement in player behaviour at the ETC. Why? Because as anyone who has played 40k at the ETC will tell you; woe betide ANYONE who incurs the wrath of me and my referee team. I will... better yet I HAVE, red carded and excluded players on the spot for cheating, deliberately slow playing on multiple occasions, even for just being a total d*ck to their opponent. A red card means you are gone and you are never coming back. No excuses, no apologies, you were warned and now you are gone.
I could write a whole essay on how to manage player behaviour (I am also a teacher and a qualified international rugby referee - both of which I draw upon when refereeing 40k), but to keep it short it has taken me and my team 5 years of tough love, no nonesense discipline to bring the ETC out of the hole it was falling into. Our work is never done; this year 7 players got yellow carded, which in some cases included we the referees even decided what the score of the game would be (One such case was in a game Team America where we decided the Americans player would have won 18-2 but for deliberate slow play). But compared to 9th Age which is run parallel to 40k at the ETC, I don’t have TEAMS blantnetly cheating and/or being complete c*nts to their opponents GAME after GAME, YEAR after YEAR.
Why? Because I do not tolerate anything except friendly-competitiveness. No ifs, no buts. Don’t like it? Don’t come.
So in short either you as a community get tough like I / we did at the ETC, or this kind of shenanigans and behaviour that has got you all worked up is only going to continue. And judging from the conversations I had with Team America over the weekend this sh*t has to stop.
Tough love boys. Tough love.
Feel free to PM me here or on Facebook (neil kerr) if you want to hear more about how I manage one of the biggest team event so in the world from being ruined by the wrong kind of players.
Much love from the ETC
Neil.
I have a man crush.
Thank you Sir. Thank you for "getting it" and doing the right thing for the attendees. Players might know it but competition need rules of engagement and their expectations managed. Bravo Sir!
