Tournament ruling- the intentional tilt.


It doesn’t. At least not in the code that was used at last PAPA qualifying. I passed on a mode during second blackwater lock and was not offered a mode on third. Often times it seems to relight the lock because people hit their 3rd ramp at the same time as their third lock.


Begin rant :slight_smile:

This discussion has become completely ridiculous.

Seriously. I can’t believe anyone is arguing that tilting intentionally for greed letters is the type of situation the rule in question was written for. I %100 believe anyone saying this is trying to re-write history.

Say what you will, but for YEARS the implication was that this rule was in place to prevent situations like collusion (tilt on purpose to not play your best and change results of other players).

This is exactly why, imo, Bowen was not punished that one year at PAPA when he did this on TAF in finals - at the time everyone, players and Judges were JOKING that the rule should be enforced - it was seriously a joke that anyone would fathom enforcing this rule in this way.

We already have rules about not abusing equipment or being overly aggressive. We already have rules about collusion. This rule is amazingly hand-wavy and unenforceable.

I mean really, what is the goal of this rule? What is it trying to prevent or achieve?


It definitely doesn’t. It may happen most of the times you seen a multiball start but it doesn’t work this way.

If you are keen on passing on modes and you’ve already passed on say Lannister and a couple others. The only way to relight that mode insert is by this bug, or to qualify another house. Or qualify all houses. Then you are unable to pass and have to pick a mode every time you hit the center ramp.


I wasn’t sure if they changed mode qualification on lock 3 in the code, but if they didn’t then I definitely think we should address that soon: are intentional tilt warnings allowed?


Yes, but maybe if you ask some more a rule will get written against them. :wink:


I argued pretty much for that exact thing above, but I was talking about how the wording of this rule clearly does make it apply to GREED. I won’t argue about how this rule has been historically interpreted, though my very limited experience suggests that you’re correct.

If everyone can agree that this is true, then the rule definitely needs to be rewritten.

Please keep in mind that there are a lot of TDs who rely on the written rules as their guide rather than a wealth of experience playing in or running world-class events.


Throwing in late here, but the rule, seemingly unenforceable in a CONSISTENT manner, should be dropped.

As for the mentions about lock-stealing and the rest, the comments above about how some players get a different ‘game’ because the state of the game differs for each player, that seems enough to warrant single player games regardless of the ‘likeable’ factor (whether people like single player or not). Does it disadvantage player 1 over the rest? Potentially, but that would be on a case-by-case basis where some players may be very familiar with the game, others not so much.

After all, should the rules be written to promote fairness in pinball or what people prefer because in some cases the two won’t be in alignment. Seems that rules should be written for fairness above all. I’d much rather not play a game where lock-stealing can occur as it definitely changes the game for each player.

Will say this is a good thread to read as the discussion is generally open and it’s why this forum is refreshing over PS/RGP


In total agreement. The rule as written never matched up with they way it was ever perceived or enforced imo.


That doesn’t really make sense either, though. If I’m trying to throw a game to influence the overall group results, I can very easily do that without tilting.


Lock stealing is just a part of certain games. Choosing player order becomes more important when you’re playing Space Shuttle, and the risk/reward of locking a ball changes player strategy accordingly.

A competitive game of pinball with four players is more complicated and more interesting than a four player high score contest. This is a feature, not a bug.


Still awaiting an answer for this @pinwizj :slight_smile:
I just do not understand the reason for the rule, and so far every other single person in the thread agrees that it should be removed. Pinball gods be damned!


There’s been rule discussions with PAPA where I’ve felt extremely strongly about the verbiage I want to include. This is not one of those rules. I’m fine either way and don’t really consider this a big deal regardless. If you want to get the PAPA perspective ask @PAPA_Doug.

Now as far as answering your statement, I can give it a shot . . .

When shaking the game intentionally to trigger something (Avatar, BSD, etc), you are definitely trying to NOT TILT in the process. There’s strategy in using your warnings effectively, which limits the amount of force you can put on the game and get away with it. I consider that an actual SKILL of nudging just the right amount to get the desired result without tilting.

When the benefit of the game isn’t from managing that nudge, but from the trigger of the actual tilt itself, to me that’s a different mechanic required from the player.

The difference to me is CRYSTAL CLEAR, whether you agree with the rule or not, so I don’t find this contradictory.

For IFPA this rule is pretty meaningless to me because we play all EM’s as single player games, and Radical as a single player game. We’re a sticky note away from “Tilting out of Greed Letters is fine” on the Addams Family backglass if we really wanted to handle that one particular game issue . . . but I can also put a post it note that says “Earn your f*cking GREED letters like a boss”.

Because I have complete faith and trust in players to follow the rules, I don’t even worry about players ‘making it look good’. Just DON’T DO IT if the rules say DON’T DO IT.

If the tournament is “plunge extra balls”, I can’t imagine making a ruling against a player that was like, “I just can’t control myself to follow that rule, I had to play my extra ball, this rule is stupid.”

Now if the PAPA boys want to dump the rule, I’m fine with dumping it, but I will instead include on the post it note for Addams: “No Tilting for GREED letters if your name is Raymond Davidson”

I’ll stick it right next to our “Magnets have been disabled thanks to Cryss Stephens” note.


I just seems like a lot of hoops to jump through when you could just get rid of the rule. I still haven’t seen a good reason for it other than all the explanations on how it is easy to be enforced, it’s different than this rule, “just don’t use those games”, etc. All the arguments to me at least seem to just be beating around the bush, but I haven’t heard a convincing argument as to why pinball is better with this rule in place, when the “don’t be abusive” rule would suffice just fine, as Cayle said.


I’ve been burned by an extra ball plunge starting Crank it Up on Metallica in league play before and I’ve also been specifically forbidden from tilting out the extra ball in the plunge lane because of this inexplicable rule. I agree that nobody has really presented a concrete explanation for why this rule exists and while I understand that the CIU scenario would not happen at PAPA/Pinburgh (due to EBs being disabled), it can certainly happen on location at any of the leagues/tournaments across the country that use the PAPA ruleset as a template. Would love to see this rule removed or to be provided with more details regarding why such a subjective and strange rule was deemed important enough to retain.


Re-paraphrasing myself: I still think the simplest solution is to ditch the rule.

And if IFPAPA wants to keep it, then TD’s around the world and country that wish to allow intentional tilting for all the various reasons that have been captured: simply write that as a rule for your event (with specific local rules taking precedence over IFPAPA rules). Done!

** I realize this doesn’t help with playing at PAPA or IFPA. **


The whole crux of this is the conflict between two well-intentioned rules that don’t blend well in non-100%-IPFAPA rigor situations. A “don’t intentionally tilt to adversely affect your opponent’s game state” rule makes sense. A “plunge-EBs-to-save-time rule makes sense,” but only on games where this will not [adversely] affect your own game state. This is blatantly not true in situations like Metallica with CIU lit, nor on games with significant “hold bonus” features, among other things. There’s both a numerical and an ethical difference between tilting to gain advantage over another player and tilting to avoid disadvantage to yourself. The simplest way out is to accede to letting people play EBs when they’re not turned off. If time is an issue, then alter your schedule or event format if there would be a whole lot of EBs being played. WTF is wrong with “play it as it lies”? If it’s not a Big Deal event, let players enjoy the EBs they earn. Then you can keep the No Intentional Tilt rule in place without screwing things up.


Sorry, I can’t even agree with this part.

Using the Radical example: if the previous player leaves me a locked ball, I can “steal” it through flipper action. Or I can “steal” it through tilting. Either way, I may be adversely affecting the game state of the player after me. Does it matter if I did that through intentional flipper action or through intentional (strong) nudging action?


To me this seems the best way to sum up the whole issue with extra balls.

The argument that it takes too long to turn extra balls off on all machines and then turn them back on, or that there are other non-tournament players present doesn’t sit well with me. That seems a half-arsed way to run a tournament, or even that you don’t have access to the keys to make those changes.
The problem with extra balls is easily solved if the TD can be bothered to turn them off in the first place.

If you don’t have access to the keys to change settings, or don’t want to, simply play it as it lies or don’t use that machine, or change the format if you’re worried about length of time your tournament will take - rather than trying to focus on maxing out TGP.

Maybe as well as the recent rule change to “selfie leagues” - in that a TD must be present to make rulings for the session to count. It could be extended to keys, and the ability to access machines in use must be present. How else would you deal with a stuck ball, or minor malfunction?
Put simply - No keys - Not an IFPA sanctioned tournament.

If a comp chooses to ignore ANY of the IFPA rules (such as deciding that a player can intentionally tilt in their comp because they don’t agree with the rule) they shouldn’t be eligible to enter it for points. It would also likely cut down on the number of tournaments designed purely to harvest points with the least amount of effort from the TD. Make the TDs take pride in their tournaments, rather than just advertising that it’s maxed out.

It could be said that this is hard, if not impossible, to enforce - but so are the majority of the rules regarding tournament submissions, relying on the honesty and integrity of the individual TD in each instance.



As it’s written RIGHT NOW, one move is legal and one move is illegal.

I have full faith in someone like yourself understanding the difference between those two actions and understanding which one is the legal one :slight_smile:


Come on. Really!?!?

Because all those tourneys and leagues that are run on location somewhere (when op can’t be there all the time with keys), that are introducing new people to the game are terrible for pinball? And you think they’re for the purpose of harvesting WPPRs? :laughing:

I realize that the situation may be completely different in the UK, but here in the States, pinball is seeing a resurgence in large part to LOCATION pinball. It makes no sense at all to stifle that. Many a league and local tourney (no, not high level regional events that run for a weekend and draw people traveling long distance) work just fine without keys.

And your logic that all TD or League Directors are limiting EB’s for the sake of TGP: also laughable. In my experience, I and others do that to keep the league more fun for all (not TGP), and have less time that less-skilled players have to wait while high-skilled players are blowing up a pin.

I appreciate your opinion. But your assumptions and logic behind it don’t hold up.