Good morning everyone.... yes I have not left yet.

I am proposing that the community comes up with clear rules to follow at all tournaments for etiquette and expectations for both live and vassal tournaments. it is pretty clear that people have different expectations for both types and I think it will help to standardize them for tournament organizers.

Single Day Events I'd be ok with people who finish early watching events.

Long running events locked rooms should be an option.

But not by the other members of the Top 4. That would only decrease the legitimacy of the tournament.

Just depends if you are talking about a casual vassal tournament over weeks, a serious vassal tournament over weeks or a all day vassal tournament. If it is Casual or an all day tournament then I completely agree! If it is supposed to be a more serious tournament over several weeks then that person shouldn't be allowed to watch every game that round. That would provide them with a pretty big strategic advantage.

The rules should be black or white.

Either everyone is mandated to lock the room for each game.

Or no one is allowed to lock the room at all.


It is crazy that some individuals can watch multiple games and than lock their own door.

A fully locked door policy means that there is no way to cheat the system.

A fully open door policy means that people can take advantage of the system (if they want to spend the time doing so), but not cheat the system.


A fully open tournament is also more inviting to the community at large, and it is more fun.

I honestly don't care about locked or unlocked rooms. It really makes no difference to me and it never has. I can't even begin to count the number of SWM leagues and tournaments that I've been part of over the years. I do know that I've never worried about the doors either way. Sometimes I locked them because I wanted some privacy when there were a bunch of lurkers in the main room who had a habit of coming in and providing commentary (ugh!...[kick...lock]), and sometimes I locked the room just out of habit. I don't ever once recall my opponent having a problem with it either way.

And I don't understand how or why some people are worried about cheating. I mean, we all know the rules of the game. Do any of you really think that someone is going to try to pull a fast one on you if the door is locked? I certainly hope not! If so then please warn me about who these cheaters are (with prior evidence to back it up), so I don't get swindled too!

And if it's just a matter of gaining an advantage by watching someone else's game then I guess I kinda don't know what to say. People are always welcome to come and watch my games if they'd like...I tend to vary my tactics every match anyway, since every matchup is different. I guess there might be something to say if there was a BIG prize on the line.... But even then, in Imperial Assault (which offers some pretty sweet prizes to Top 8 players), people who finish early are often standing around and watching the games--including the TACTICS! {gasp}--of those who are still playing. Nobody ever complains about that as long as the spectators are non-disruptive...not once have I ever seen that be a problem. And you know what? Just as often, the players who finish early go for a water- and bathroom-break instead. Its not a big deal.


So I guess I really just don't see the problem. But for the sake of clarity moving forward, I'd be fine if the TO made a simple decision at the start, just to prevent all the insanity that ensued in this case.

Honestly, I think the best solution might be to simply instruct all players to make a log file of each tournament match that they play. We've done that for every single IA vassal tournament that I've played in--probably 8-10 in the past 2 years. It's actually standard operating procedure in lots of other games. And in the course of these 2 years, I have watched exactly ONE of those log files, and that was only because the game report said the match was so extremely close and competitive that I figured it was worth the time. It certainly wasn't because I thought I'd be gaining a tactical advantage for the upcoming rounds.

I think people are getting far too worked up about this whole thing. Nobody's cheating. Nobody's screwing anyone else over. We were all having a lot of fun...and some of us still are!

Right, and I agree that watching games is very helpful for newer players...especially when they have an experienced player explaining/commentating as the game goes one. That can be a tremendous coaching opportunity!

Actually, what one of my old friends on Vassal used to do years ago was to watch logfiles of my games with me and show me where I could've improved or what I could've done differently. Honestly, I probably learned a good 90% of my "stuff" or "skills" or whatever you call it, from him. Commentating on games for newer players--whether that's while watching someone else's game or while watching the newer player's game afterward--is probably the single best way to help someone improve at SWM...or really any strategy/tactical game.


"Only Sith deal in absolutes." [lol, the circular and self-defeating reasoning there is hilarious! You'd think that a jedi as wise and well-trained as Obiwan would think more clearly. It's just as bad as the "We are tolerant toward everyone who isn't intolerant" mindset which seems to shape society today! lol...but wow, that's a tangent! I gotta get back on track here....]


In all seriousness, though, I hear you! Principles matter a great deal to me too. But for me, the fact that principles matter is precisely why I chose to side with Matt on this. That's because, for me, the players are more important than the game. I think it's the same thing in all of life: coaching soccer (I've coached for probably 10 years now and my players always ask to have me coach them again), business, parenting, etc. I believe that all people are important and have inherent dignity, and so therefore, if I have to err, I'd usually prefer to err on the side of being taken advantage of, than on the side of taking advantage of others. So yeah, I think I'm quite strongly principled.

Now, did it seem unfair, or was it annoying that Matt watched another game but then locked his own game? Yes, and at first glance I can see why that would strike someone as unfair or two-faced, or whatever. Remember, it was Darth_Jim who brought up the question, and he has established himself as one of the most patient and well-thought-out and cool-headed personalities on these boards! (And he's also my best friend in the game too!) And at first I could completely understand where Jim and the rest of you were coming from, and I thought he (and y'all) had a good point. What's good for the gundark is good for the gamorrean (or goose/gander, but whatever). Fairness is important.

But for me, once I heard Matt's reasons, it all made sense. To my mind, Matt's reasons completely trumped or Disrupted or Distracted or Doctrine-of-Fear-ed (lol) any perception of unfairness whatsoever. He's playing amid special/difficult circumstances, which I'm aware of (even though I myself haven't struggled with these specific things)...and given those circumstances, I would prefer to give him a little bit of extra leeway on this matter, than have him feel like he shouldn't (or even possibly can't?) play at all. The game is for the players, first and foremost. And I think that even Jim himself said "oh, that makes sense then" after Matt explained himself.

So in the end, I just wish that we all (ie, the other ~15 players in the tournament) would've collectively accepted Matt's explanation, given him grace (and for the sake of fairness, probably asked him not to watch any other games during this tournament), and then not worried about it again. Sadly, things didn't work out that way, and so we've had several good players drop out of the event. We (as a group of participants in the event) let the thing get blown way out of proportion, and I think that's lamentable.


But I'm having fun playing SWM again so if there's another tournament then I'll probably be interested in playing...regardless of its door-control practices. lol...I think it's funny and thoroughly ironic that in SWM we're having an argument about doors. "If you don't like getting locked out, then bring more door control!" lol ...doesn't anyone have an Ugnaught or an R7? Door Shatter, Thorium Charge, anyone?

^ I know this was in good humor and i would love to keep the discussion going.

Kenobi stating this, if it is true, is not an issue. If it is true that Only Sith Deal in Absolutes than Kenobi is not dealing in absolutes he is dealing with fact.

So than burden of proof is on experience/the world to determine if using an absolute is a "sith" thing to do. Also we would need to determine if using a "sith" principle (like dealing with absolutes) makes a jedi a sith...

Because we have seen great jedi use anger or force lightning, even Vapaad draws on the dark side, etc etc
Is Luke not a jedi when he cut off Vader's arm? for instance?

With those two precedents in place. It is fine for Kenobi to use the statement while not succumbing to it and therefore not making it a self defeating proclamation.

Because truths are absolute. When jedi say that doing this or that leads to the dark side... are they than using an absolute? maybe for some people it will not lead to the dark side. Also, general statements like that do not mean that that is what will actually happen.
I mean, Ki Adi Mundi was allowed to wed and have a family after all. So the jedi say absolutes in words, but not in spirit.

I feel that if Kenobi had more time to make a cool comeback he would have. I think he was more trying to get himself prepared to defeat Anakin by telling himself that he was not dealing with Anakin the Jedi, but with Anakin the Sith. and he was right.

But anyway. Would I like for concessions to be made for people? not really. not in this. The game is more important than the player. The game is what is fun it is what is being played, it is what brings everyone together.
While coaching soccer, why dont you tell the other team that your striker is allowed to be offsides but they are not allowed to be offsides. Because your striker is a tad slow. Accommodations for some make the game not as fun for others.

If you are daft enough to make a statement like "Required to be at both practices" than yes, you should follow the rule. One of the best things about being a coach is creating your rules, philosophy of coaching. The first thing any coach knows is that he does not make rules that he is not willing to back. This is at every level. It is much better to state the expectation and than if, needed, make accommodations.

Competition is very real and observers is also very real. This is why rookies talk about the first time on the court against a good team and the pressure. You can see it on that "Any Given Sunday" movie about football. A new quarterback gets put in and throws up.

When you play a game, the weight of spectators is always a part of the competition.
I don't really recall using the "cheater" term very often. I remember saying that if someone who does not need an accommodation is given an accommodation it is cheating. but mostly talk about it being unfair and not tournament play. Now we know that spryguy does not need this accommodation... we know this because he plays at a very high level in WAY MORE stressful situations.

So there is no need for accommodations, there is just a want.

In your scenario it would be like this. You set a precedent for the team. Everyone needs to be at practice as much as they can and dedication and sacrifice to be there will pay off in playing minutes. Now you have one boy who decides he has too much going on "Homework, girlfriend, paper route" and that he just needs a night off.
Come game day he tells you this and you have to decide if this meets the precedent or not. Well of course it doesn't.


I love when people try to throw out fallacies as if they actually are versed in debate. This is not a straw man. Giving an accommodation where one does not need an accommodation is the point behind it. Calling it a straw man just belittles the nature of the point. Then setting a precedent that I am even talking about SWM rules in and of itself is a fallacy.
Having observers is a rule of sports/competitions. It is a hard rule of sports and competitions a like. ESPECIALLY when one person is allowed to watch other people and, in turn, locks the door on others. This is breaking the rule of tournaments / competitive play.
i have played at a high level and coached at a high level. Having spectators is a real stress inducing thing. There is a large difference between playing a small town team and a rival team. This does not mean that just because it is hard that I can lock the gates and play in silence.

It is not breaking the rules of SWM, it is breaking the rules of tournament play. I guess that is what you are missing here. This is why there are things like closed practices and things like that. So that others cannot scout.
When a team that scouts a closed practice gets caught, they get in trouble.

Hence why I think it should be one way or the other. but not left up to both. because people will take advantage of the system and it will not be fair. There is really no way of getting around that.

Of course it does.