Ok, I'll try to do it your way. It changes nothing anyway.

nmid wrote on Sat, 14 May 2011 16:01

What goal? Calling mac a cheater? I never started. Someone else did. I agreed. As do plenty of other ppl.

You just jumped on the bandwagon. Others might have their own reasons, but what's yours? You insist that you did nothing punishable and, at the same time, you insist that Mac deserves a far worse punishment than what his host already dealt. Why?

You also seem to think that Mac should be closely watched if he ever joins another game. But it looks like you don't think you'll deserve the same treatment. Again, why?

Quote:

1. Did I break rules? Sure. (A rule that wasn't mentioned). 2. Intentionally, with a point of breaking rules? No. 3. Can I be called a cheater? As per MY definition No. The same definition I have been trying to get through to you. 4. If you do want to call me a cheater, I'm FINE with that too, as long as future players realise it was UNINTENTIONAL and I ADMITTED to AND APOLOGISED for.

I need more data for line #1: when was that? 2004? 2006? 2008? 2010?

#2: Perhaps not to break what you believed to be the rules, but did you seriously think that bug was actually a standard game "feature"? Did you see it described as such somewhere?

#3: Your definition is then flawed. As in "it has more holes than swiss cheese". But you previously stated that your definition was broad enough to cover true cheaters, benders, and breakers. Something is wrong.

#4 I'd like to call you a reformed cheater. You've clearly taken some steps in the right direction, but I don't see you there yet, sorry.

Quote:

1. Things that are NOT common with mac. In detail: 2. Did mac break rules? Yes. 3. Intentionally, with a point of breaking rules? Arguable, but done 2 times, perhaps 3. 4. Can mac be called a cheater? Yes.

#2: that's why he should be branded a rules-breaker, and punished accordingly.
#3: not quite the deciding factor. He broke the rules. Intent doesn't matter, except perhaps for deciding the punishment. What he didn't do was abuse a game bug.
#4: What would be the point of calling him a cheater when you don't like to be called the same? Why should everybody worry about what he did but not about you?

Quote:

1. Oh best of all, when I started playing the duel, it was clearly stated that standard championship thread rules will apply. 2. Show me the rule that I broke. 3. I considered mine-dodge a standard game rule, like chaff and over-gating heal and fleet dodge. 4. Does that mean using the last 3 in a duel = cheating as well?

#1: these rules seem pretty simple. They just mention "straightforward games" and "Ron's rules". I didn't find anything more definite, but I didn't find any "everything is allowed" rule either.

Most "straightforward games" explicitly mention the "standard cheats disclaimer", and many spell out what's meant by "standard". How do most hosts go about it? "chaff is allowed, this and that is allowed, everything else isn't". They don't say "mine damage dodge" is not allowed, as it is clearly included in "everything else", and in fact the "everything else" bit is there to cover all new cheats/bugs defined as such.

Ron's rules mention ethics. He seems to assume everybody knows what that is. (ab)using a game engine flaw and trying to level the playing field by getting your opposition to do the same can perhaps be considered logical, and even reasonable, but ethical? Debatable at the very least.

#2: you broke common sense. When in doubt, ask. Do it *before* you get caught. Look for a comprehensive list of what is and isn't allowed. Don't say "there's no list" or "no-one told me". You have a neat little trick up your sleeve, one that's clearly at odds with the official game mechanics. You see it mentioned nowhere. Yet you still insist it is your right to do it. So, how does that make you any better than Mac? There's a sayin

Report message to a moderator

Pheeeeew!!! If you think that's a hard read, don't even think how it was to write it!

He made me do it!

Report message to a moderator

[email

m.a@stars[/email] wrote on Sun, 15 May 2011 01:25]Pheeeeew!!! If you think that's a hard read, don't even think how it was to write it! He made me do it!

Took me an hour to reply too to your previous post.
AND almost 1.5 hours for my "next" reply.
Sigh.

[Updated on: Sat, 14 May 2011 20:52]

Report message to a moderator

Edit -
I know I've been rude here, but so have you been.
I guess we've been rude just to get our view points across.
See you around in another thread.

-------------------------------------------------
The original reply :

m.a@stars wrote on Sun, 15 May 2011 01:23

Ok, I'll try to do it your way. It changes nothing anyway.

It could have changed quite a lot of things actually. The entire paragraph's intent was to be considered as a whole point/idea.
However, you continue to argue on a point to point basis, just lumping them together.

I'll answer you in the same way, point by point, and not conceptually as it should be done.

When you answer point-by-point, you tend to forget what you've read or what you've written a few points before. Read below.
------------------------------------------------------------ -

In order of priority
----------
It showed me that you don't bother reading posts carefully, or you forget older posts to your convinience.

When I have already posted in my earlier posts that "YES, MINE-DAMAGE-DODGE-USING-CHAFF WAS A FEATURE IN GAMES I"VE PLAYED", I don't understand why you ask again if I've "see(n) it described as such somewhere?
"

It's just getting sadly irritating that no matter how many times I try explaining a simple thing to you, you refuse to understand it.

-------------------

Now in order of your responses.

Quote:

You insist that you did nothing punishable

Read my posts

Quote:

1. Mine dodge was a standard game feature in my games. 2. It wasn't mentioned as not allowed in the championship rules. 3. If you say "true cheats" are not allowed till specifically allowed, then chaff/over-gating heal/split-fleet dodge ARE NOT ALLOWED IN DUELS AS WELL. 4. I agreed to letting my IT opponent use it against my SD race. 5. I explained my viewpoint to my oppponent AND HE WAS FINE WITH IT. which shows that he realised it wasn't meant to be a cheat/it was unintended and everything else subtle, which I'm too hot to put into words right now. 6. Just to get you of my back, I agreed it was a unintended cheat caused by a confusion in championship rules. (In mac's case, he broke the rules that were CLEARLY stated in a number of places and he was aware of the same. I WASN'T). 7. I apologised for the confusion. 8. There were no other mistakes/confusions by me in that game.

refer to #1,#2,#5,#6,#7,#8.

Quote:

and, at the same time, you insist that Mac deserves a far worse punishment than what his host already dealt. Why?

refer to #6 and a lack of #8.

Quote:

I need more data for line #1: when was that? 2004? 2006? 2008? 2010?

Irrelevant. 2011 championship rules (that me and slimdragoon agreed were the base rules for the duel, do not mention anything about it)
and PLEASE before you fire off, refer #3.

Quote:

#2: Perhaps not to break what you believed to be the rules, but did you seriously think that bug was actually a standard game "feature"? Did you see it described as such somewhere?

Refer Fri, 13 May 2011 22:35

Quote:

It was then that I re-read all my game rules (BigVanilla - Allowed) (Tenderfoot - Allowed) (FA7 - Not allowed)

Quote:

#3: Your definition is then flawed. As in "it has more holes than swiss cheese". But you previously stated that your definition was broad enough to cover true cheaters, benders, and breakers. Something is wrong.

Please understand my definition carefully.
I have said repeatedly, that intent to break DEFINED rules means you have cheated, irrespective whether they are host rules or game rules.
More so, I have also said it's the same definition as the english word. i.e. gaining an advantage over your opponent, using an unethical and illegal move.
The move was not illegal, and the move was allowed to my opponent as well.
READ THE ABOVE CAREFULLY, for everyone's sanity.

Quote:

#4 I'd like to call you a reformed cheater. You've clearly taken some steps in the right direction, but I don't see you there yet, sorry.

HAHAHAHHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHA

Report message to a moderator

[email

m.a@stars[/email] wrote on Sat, 14 May 2011 23:54] gible wrote on Sat, 14 May 2011 09:28 [CITATION NEEDED] r.g.c.s "Cheating and Host Declarations" - Oct 2000 Also an amazing read for its talk about "concensus", "rules" and "cheating".

Good reading indeed.

Things I get from that:
1) As you point out, 0.2% min damage is clearly *not* a bug and presumably therefore not a cheat. Though it does certainly need documenting.
2) Relatedly, the "bugs" list is very much a community POV and *not* official.
3) Where the hell is version k? what was on the fix it list for that version? (is version k JRC3? jRC4?)
4) How many of the other "bugs" are intended, or at least acknowledged and accepted, behaviour by the Jeffs and thus "officially ok". Chaff at least and now 0.2% min damage.
5) I feel more justified in my opinion that the "bugs" are only "cheats" because hosts say they are - iow a host's game rules define cheating not the bugs list.
6)It would be interesting to have an "official cheats disclaimer" alongside the standard one.

[Updated on: Sat, 14 May 2011 23:53]

Report message to a moderator

Eagle of Fire wrote on Fri, 13 May 2011 21:31

Wow, only 13 posts in a row for M.A? Funny how those threads turn out to be M.A talking to himself. Ron, is it possible to make a formal complaint about this? It is annoying me so much that I seriously think about stopping even reading threads in which M.A. participate. It breaks out most of the netiquette rules too... Edit: whoops, my mistake. It was 14 replies in a row. Not 13.

Calm down. If you'll try the 'Tree View' button in the upper right part of the forum page, you'll find that his posts are properly indented under the individual posts he is replying to. That may make it easier to read and keep track of who is replying to what.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

gible wrote on Sun, 15 May 2011 05:50

1) As you point out, 0.2% min damage is clearly *not* a bug and presumably therefore not a cheat. Though it does certainly need documenting.

It's probably better called a "game engine limitation", and it does result in certain counter-intuitive behaviors, and, even worse, open to abuse. That's why most people call it a bug and a cheat.

Quote:

2) Relatedly, the "bugs" list is very much a community POV and *not* official.

Some of the listed bugs were known by the Jeffs and assumed on the "to fix" list for future releases. They actually fixed some things. But others surfaced much later, or even too late.

Quote:

4) How many of the other "bugs" are intended, or at least acknowledged and accepted, behaviour by the Jeffs and thus "officially ok". Chaff at least and now 0.2% min damage.

As far as anyone knows, nothing else. Not even the "Dock Armor Overload" which would seem to arise from yet another "limitation" of the game engine.

Quote:

5) I feel more justified in my opinion that the "bugs" are only "cheats" because hosts say they are - iow a host's game rules define cheating not the bugs list.

Not the hosts. The "bugs" receive special treatment because of their severity and/or generality, which force everybody in every game to be wary of potentially disastrous results (either because of severe unbalances or outright game crashes) On top of that, most of these bugs cannot be triggered (or abused) by mistake, so the "I didn't mean to do it" defense doesn't exist.

Luckily for all, most hosts remember to adhere to "the standard cheats disclaimer" so those unwilling or unable to accept some ancient or insufficiently clear consensus can instead anchor themselves onto something much more defined.

Quote:

6)It would be interesting to have an "official cheats disclaimer" alongside the standard one.

Yup, but where do we get it? Or from who?

[Updated on: Sun, 15 May 2011 08:22]

Report message to a moderator

gible wrote on Sun, 15 May 2011 05:50

acknowledged and accepted behaviour

A word of caution here: In developer lingo, "acknowledged" is far from the same as "accepted". WONTFIX is not the same as FEATURE.

Report message to a moderator

Quote:

Calm down. Rolling Eyes If you'll try the 'Tree View' button in the upper right part of the forum page, you'll find that his posts are properly indented under the individual posts he is replying to. That may make it easier to read and keep track of who is replying to what.

Sure, nice excuse. I didn't know this forum was ancient enough (insult here) to the point retarded mechanisms were used as excuse for spam, double posting and flame wars.

If at the very least MA was using one post to reply to all quotes from a single individual, considering the amount of discussion here, I would not mind. But using 14 posts in which most of them are only baits? Sure... Great excuse.

I already used the ignore function... This thread doesn't make much sense since because only M.A actually bother being part of the opposition. If people were not quoting M.A each time then I would not even have an idea of what is being discussed. Or why.

M.A. break most netiquette rules I have known to be worldwide. Unless he stops acting like this I will never stop considering him as a spammer and troller...

Report message to a moderator

Eagle of Fire wrote on Sun, 15 May 2011 19:56

M.A. break most netiquette rules I have known to be worldwide. Unless he stops acting like this I will never stop considering him as a spammer and troller...

The depths of your utter ignorance, or outright disregard, of even the most basic rules of convivence, let alone etiquette, are appalling.

Report message to a moderator

m.a@stars wrote on Sun, 15 May 2011 13:51

Eagle of Fire wrote on Sun, 15 May 2011 19:56 M.A. break most netiquette rules I have known to be worldwide. Unless he stops acting like this I will never stop considering him as a spammer and troller... The depths of your utter ignorance, or outright disregard, of even the most basic rules of convivence, let alone etiquette, are appalling.

Cut! Time out! Commercial!
Okay, I don't know who is winning so far. Probably Ron.
So I'm going to get my post in before the thread is locked.

Fly Like an Eagle (mp3 clip)
(what I think m.a thinks about what Eagle thinks m.a thinks)

Report message to a moderator

BlueTurbit wrote on Mon, 16 May 2011 01:08

Okay, I don't know who is winning so far. Probably Ron.

Heh.

BlueTurbit wrote on Mon, 16 May 2011 01:08

Fly Like an Eagle (mp3 clip) (what I think m.a thinks about what Eagle thinks m.a thinks)

Sound track : Time keeps on slipping, slipping ...
Me : hmm... What's the point?
(10 secs later, Sound track repeats)
Me : hmm... The tune is actually nice.
(20 secs _ _ _ )
Me : Hahahahahaha (out loud. I did. In real life! )

Edit - Please note that my amusement does not mean I support the concept.

[Updated on: Sun, 15 May 2011 16:52]

Report message to a moderator

BlueTurbit wrote on Sun, 15 May 2011 21:38

Okay, I don't know who is winning so far. Probably Ron.

Yup, I've already referred to his superior wisdom in the matter of EagleOfFUD.

Report message to a moderator

Please don't lock it. I'm still writing the counters to all the chaff...

Ach! Too many quotes! My eyes!

[Updated on: Sun, 15 May 2011 20:50]

Report message to a moderator

m.a@stars wrote on Mon, 16 May 2011 00:22

most of these bugs cannot be triggered (or abused) by mistake, so the "I didn't mean to do it" defense doesn't exist.

On the contrary, except for the freepop hack and mineral upload, they *all* happen naturally. That's how they were noticed in the first place. Unfortunately, so do the non-exploitable bugs.

m.a@stars wrote on Mon, 16 May 2011 00:22

As far as anyone knows, nothing else. Not even the "Dock Armor Overload" which would seem to arise from yet another "limitation" of the game engine. Quote: 6)It would be interesting to have an "official cheats disclaimer" alongside the standard one. Yup, but where do we get it? Or from who?

Like most of the wiki content I've written rather than copied, by doing the research and finding what the Jeffs have said. It just takes someone to actually do it.

m.a@stars wrote on Mon, 16 May 2011 00:31

A word of caution here: In developer lingo, "acknowledged" is far from the same as "accepted". WONTFIX is not the same as FEATURE.

Dude, I'm a developer, I used both words for that reason.
In the case of 0.2% min damage, acceptance is clear. JMcB says get over it

Report message to a moderator

gible wrote on Mon, 16 May 2011 00:45

On the contrary, except for the freepop hack and mineral upload, they *all* happen naturally. That's how they were noticed in the first place. Unfortunately, so do the non-exploitable bugs.

Heh. UR/CE Scrapping, False PPS, N/S minefield Immunity, Cheap Starbase, Dock Armor Overflow, SB Friendly Fire and Battle Board Overload happen all the time!

No kidding, the last SB FF I saw took a really fascinating chain of mistakes to happen, and against all odds, everybody accepted it as natural.

Quote:

Like most of the wiki content I've written rather than copied, by doing the research and finding what the Jeffs have said. It just takes someone to actually do it.

Yeah, that would probably be the way to do it, assuming it's there somewhere. But it might take a lot of digging. I found these two but nothing closer to the current list of bugs. Yet.

Quote:

Dude, I'm a developer, I used both words for that reason. In the case of 0.2% min damage, acceptance is clear. JMcB says get over it

Which is not the same as saying "Alphas trump Nubs because we wanted it that way". Jeff mentions the workaround and the next version for a reason.

Report message to a moderator

Ok, I went out of my way to humour you, only to get scoffed for my efforts. Well, at least I tried. I gave you enough rope. Let's see what you did with it.

nmid wrote on Sun, 15 May 2011 02:55

I know I've been rude here, but so have you been. I guess we've been rude just to get our view points across. See you around in another thread.

I couldn't care less about what you say to me or about me. I care about what you've done and tried to do to the rest of our fellow players, and let me assure you, and them, I'll have none of that.

Quote:

It could have changed quite a lot of things actually. The entire paragraph's intent was to be considered as a whole point/idea. However, you continue to argue on a point to point basis, just lumping them together. I'll answer you in the same way, point by point, and not conceptually as it should be done.

You make a lot of points, and are also quite clever in trying to sneak your way around my reasoning, and avoiding the most direct enquiries about your motives and, ultimately, about how in the seven hells do you expect your unworkable proposal to work. Therefore I don't dare leave a single one of your little jabs unanswered.

Unless it turns out your whole "let's change the way threads have always been done" was just another of your little tricks to avoid answering, as is my guess.

Do you want concepts? Here's a couple:

1) Your initial "proposal" that we dumped the old way of doing things in favor of a new way had the initial appeal of novelty, and perhaps of being more in accord with modern times and modern players. But now? Your "new way" has been shown as unjust, confusing, unworkable, unbalancing, and, ultimately, self-serving. You've refused again and again to explain, expand, or refine your "proposal". You keep saying it's the way things should be done. Well, I'll keep saying no. Answer to that or forget the whole thing.

2) You have been shown as a true cheater and a s######s rules-breaker. Which is the worst of the two? You say the one, I say the other. At any rate, either of the two condemns you, and makes you and anything you say suspicious, including any of your "apologies". You lack even the grace to avoid calling others what you yourself are! You defend yourself behind the magical shield of "intent", so I ask you what your intent is, or what do you think we should believe your intent is when you refuse to answer? Answer that one too if you dare!

All the rest is looking more and more like your pathetic attempts at evading the trap you yourself fell into. But even that I won't leave unanswered.

Quote:

When you answer point-by-point, you tend to forget what you've read or what you've written a few points before. Read below.

Even though I seriously doubt you have any justification to say that, I have already asked you to show me where I've misread, misquoted or misinterpreted you. To no avail. Answer that one too, unless it is just another of your many lies, dishonourable scoundrel.

Quote:

In order of priority ---------- It showed me that you don't bother reading posts carefully, or you forget older posts to your convinience. When I have already posted in my earlier posts that "YES, MINE-DAMAGE-DODGE-USING-CHAFF WAS A FEATURE IN GAMES I"VE PLAYED", I don't understand why you ask again if I've "see(n) it described as such somewhere? " It's just getting sadly irritating that no matter how many times I try explaining a simple thing to you, you refuse to understand it.

Can't you read? Or is it just that you can't answer? I ask what games where those. Names, URLs, Hosts, who played in them, where their announcement threads are, their private Forums, EVERYTHING. It's a simple question, you manipulative s######s. Assuming such games do actually exist, of course. I've even left you the open door of telling me where else might have you seen that particular dirty trick described as "standard", when, or at least by who. Answer to that if you can.

[Updated on: Sun, 15 May 2011 21:38] by Moderator

Report message to a moderator

Ok ya'll, you've gone and done it again, even calling each other bad names now.

I feel like I'm trying to separate some tom cats fighting, and they're not happy since they want to continue the fight. You may not like me stopping you, but it seemed to me that the situation just kept on getting worse and worse so I feel I have to step in.

I might get scratched, but the cat yawling was getting on my nerves

Thread locked.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator