No, it is quite possible to intentionally tilt a game while not abusing it.
There are three levels of force: Minimal (which is agreeable to both the tilt bob and tournament director), moderate (which will set off the tilt bob but not the TD), and abuse (unacceptable by anyone/anything, see ya, DQ).
From what I’ve seen, nearly all tilts fall into moderate, whether they’re intentional or not.
[quote=“gammagoat, post:76, topic:2429”]
Intentionally tilting could violate abuse of machines since you are exceeding force allowed by the tilt, intentionally.[/quote]
That rule is about excessive force, rage tilting, and so on. A normal tilt (intentional or not) is just that: a normal tilt. It happens all the time and doesn’t constitute abuse.
While I would agree that it’s possible to tilt a game without abusing it, abuse goes a little deeper. Stetta can bang back games with minimal force. Because of guys like Rick, they had to specifically say no bang backs (or death saves).
I like the idea above about listing on the apron that the exploit isn’t allowed. No tilting for greed letter or DQ is all you need to write.
But then you’re back to where we started: was a tilt done “for a greed letter” or as a result of a legitimate attempt to save the ball? Subjective rulings suck.
Now you’re back to intent though. How do you know I didn’t tilt to try and save my ball?
Also I think the bang backs and death saves were mainly there so dummies like me aren’t trying them and abusing the game and/or hurting myself.
We have just made our journey back from the mountain top, and the pinball gods have spoken.
The explanation was told to us in a very Charlton Heston style voice for anyone trying to picture what we just went through.
The rule STAYS as it is written.
Having it there is another tool in the TD arsenal to punish abusive players. Yes, judging intent is hard/impossible, but so is collusion, but I don’t see our rules for that going away any time soon.
The easiest way for me as a TD to enforce this rule is when I see a player run back to a machine after the ball is drained, just to go shake the game to tilt out because they ‘forgot’. To me that is evidence enough of intent to make that judgement call.
Furthermore, we play a gentleman’s (and ladies) game. If there is an issue whether a player intentionally tilted on Radical to free the lock balls, I will simply ASK THAT PLAYER. If they say they did, then that is intent enough for me to enforce this rule. If they say they didn’t, I take the player at their word that they didn’t, and move on.
Until next time . . . THE PINBALL GODS HAVE SPOKENNNNNNNNNNN! 
Unfortunately, TiltForums doesn’t have a “dislike” button.
Considering that the rule will stay, the best course of action might be to not use Radical! and other games with this issue in tournaments. If there is no advantage to be gained by tilting, the problem solves itself.
That’s up to the TD.
Like I mentioned previously, IFPA always uses Radical as single player only, so we never have to deal with this issue for our events.
Yes, that’s another good way to side-step the problem.
Remember to check the game notes section of the directors guide for these recommendations.
http://papa.org/learning-center/directors-guide/?target=game-notes
This game contains lock stealing between players. Due to the unusually difficult ball-lock procedure, we recommend this game is only used in single-player scenarios. Outside of using custom roms, if they are available, no major modifications need to be made to Radical in a competitive environment.
Many of the awards, including the Mega Millions Jackpot, are random. The scoring discrepancy in the Mega Millions jackpot between players is a major concern for competitive play. Directors are encouraged to install modified roms that lock the jackpot value at 5million. Directors are also encouraged to skateboard more and scream Radical when anyone manages to shoot the lane at the top center of the playfield.
Recommended Single Player Only
That’s sensible advice, thanks! Especially the bit about the screaming
And if you’re lucky enough to get the Radical bank at Pinburg, you’ll be playing a 4 player game. 
Can we ask the pinball gods about intentional dangers? There’s not many situations it comes up in, but there should be a precedent for it if a game has an exploitable danger-related strategy.
This rule was dealt with during the original merger of the PAPA/IFPA ruleset.
Originally PAPA had this as simply ‘play on’, with no consequence to the player that caused the tilt warning. They agreed to switch to my verbiage which offered potential compensation to the player impacted, along with a warning to the player that caused the tilt warning.
“Any player who tilts their own ball, which then results in a tilt warning given to the following player will not have any consequences for the first offense. The player with the warning will be allowed to continue play as normal, or choose to have the ball played on a fresh game. A second offense by the same player anytime throughout the tournament, and it will be treated as a tilt of another player’s ball, with the rules from the previous paragraph being enforced.”
I can’t think of any additional language that is needed here.
I think any danger benefit would need to be the same as the new Avatar rule, and be allowed.
Applying physical force to a machine in order to derive a benefit from the activation of a switch, stuck ball, or other other scoring feature shall only be permitted if the benefit can not be repeated continuously as determined by a tournament director. Nudging a machine so a locked ball moves and registers a switch causing a ball save, or nudging in order to manipulate a feature to begin a multiball would be permissible. Examples include shaking Bram Stoker’s Dracula such that the mist ball falls from its magnet starting multiball, shaking Avatar when a ball is in the Link assembly causing it to register, or shaking The Walking Dead causing the Well Walker to register a hit.
Let’s say the situation of the Tournament is that I need to lose and player 4 needs to win in order to force a tie (game 3 of a papa final that I won the first 2 and another player got 2nd twice) and it looks like that is going to happen, so I slam tilt the game in order to clear out the scores, happy to take my 0 - which I was getting anyway, but now the other player needs to win in a whole new game. That is a situation, I think, that the rule is correctly addressing. There is plenty of reason to simply eject me from the competition at that point, because I am in effect cheating.
The rule needs to cover that, but not a situation where, due to unplayable extra balls, I want to preserve my ability to get X mode during a ball I am allowed to play.
I’m super disappointed by this. Should I feel guilty after every tilt on TAF because it’s technically cheating? Should I have to face a moral dilemma of whether or not to “make it look good” knowing I can get away with a tilt as long as nobody calls me out on it?
Dislike.
Be prepared to lie to my face too when I ask you if you did it on purpose 
I shouldn’t have to, is what myself (and several others) are arguing.