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.

Quote:

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.

What is that? Did you just decline to answer all my legitimate concerns and questions, and instead just repeated the same copy-pasted B.S you've written before? Well, guess what, s######s, that doesn't get you off the hook. If anything, it sinks you even deeper!

Quote:

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.

Oh no, not irrelevant. That was your last hope of salvation. If you had claimed you used that trick *before* it was published, described, and publicly acknowledged as a cheat to be avoided, by its inclusion in the list and the standard disclaimer, then you could have perhaps saved yourself from being called a cheater. But no, you chose to be smart about it, and you failed. The very date you mention condemns you.

But you have done something even worse. Do you really want to make me believe that you saw ccmaster's own personalised addition to the general Dueling Club rules and just thought to yourself "yay, no restrictions, anything goes!"? I already thought you were as much a Rules-Breaker as a Cheater, but this? How stupid do you want us to believe you are, or how stupid do you think WE are?

Quote:

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

Great, I ask the "where" and you tell me a "when". Tell me WHERE, evasive s######s!

Quote:

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

How so? Big Vanilla (a game for Beginners, started well after your favourite trick was publicly hailed as a cheat) doesn't even mention it. Furthermore, I don't see your name amongst its players. Whoops! Did I just catch you lying? Or is that perhaps a genuine mistake?

Tenderfoot is, interestingly, another Beginner game. I'll have to ask its host exactly why he included your favourite trick in his "standard", and hopefully I'll also get to know how many of its players might be actually using it.

It is no surprise to me that FA7, a game for old-timers, disallows newfangled tricks and cheats.

So lets do the math: one out of three. That's not "all". That's not even half of "all". Is that all you have? Or perhaps you want to add the game where you were caught cheating?

Quote:

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.

I've read it far more carefully than you wrote it, for it is the one of your little repetitive jewels that actually brings you down. Hard.

You intentionally, purposefully, and repeatedly ignored the defined rules. The rules for the Duel Club could be a bit more specific, IMHO, but they still don't say anywhere that "anything goes". Not that that matters to you, right, sneaky cheater?

By doing so you hoped to gain the advantage over your unwary opponent. That you didn't bother to mention your "broader" interpretation of the rules to him until you were caught cheating tells more about the whole situation than anything you might now say. You only worsen things by repeating that you offered to him the possibility to cheat too. What does that say about your intent? You won't tell, so I'm again forced to guess: you wanted to break the rules, cheat and win no matter what, and on top of it you wanted a plausible alibi so no one could accuse you of that!

Quote:

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 reformed cheater? I ask again, which rule did I break? Second, let me humor you and agree that I've cheated (refer #6). Which other rule have you seen me breaking or where exactly do you want me to go? Stop being sanctamonious.

You broke them all, as explained above. I'd go as far as saying you broke trust too, and even attempted to corrupt the honor system, and quite likely are still trying to do the same.

Also, you're breaking equity, proportionality, common sense, and logic itself, among others. You insist in destroying other people's reputation on trumped-up charges, and, despite being guilty of exactly the same, or worse, you deny being equally bad. In the simplest form of logic that you feign to use: if Mac is a cheater, then you are, too. If Mac is a rules-breaker, then you are, too. Or, even simpler: nmid = Mac.

But if we acknowledge that Mac didn't actually (ab)use a game engine bug, then it turns out that, however we juggle the definitions, nmid >= Mac.

Therefore, go on if you like, malign him all you want. You are worse than him, and in dragging him down, you're falling down too, ahead of him.

Quote:

Quote: #2: that's why he should be branded a rules-breaker, and punished accordingly. To borrow a technique of yours, which I know I'll regret later... A RULE BREAKER IS A CHEATER. Last I checked, stars was using english as a medium of communication. Reserving words for a specific purpose is your wrong interpretation of decade old discussions.

Wrong? As in "nmid knows better"? Then answer once and for all why yours is any better!!

But it will matter little anyway. You just showed your utter ignorance or disregard of all German, Polish, French, and assorted worldwide players of Stars! for whom "english" is at most a convenient "translation" jargon. Your "superior" stance doesn't stand.

Quote:

Quote: #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. Why is a game bug considered cheating by you? Because it damages the game, right? Same way, catching an MT and getting a tech boost damaged the game. A player has come and said that the pop-drop changed the dynamics of a quadrant in the universe. Again, it damaged the game.

Y'know, I used to think you were just being stupid, but no, you were, and are, trying to manipulate me and the rest into thinking you are doing all of this out of the utter goodness of your innocent heart. Hah! Not any more!

As you should have deduced, or read, or asked long before today, bugs threaten all players of all games, not only those with fancy or special rules. How many games do you know where catching an MT is forbidden? Just the one. How many games of Stars! have been played over more than a decade? A Million? Two? Even if you drop it down to 10 thousand games, it is still a 10000 to 1 relative damage level! How can you even dare to think that is just the "same"??? The same way you insist that apples are oranges???

Similarly, you draw another strawman in the poor little lamb whose world was rocked by an unlawful popdrop. Do you have the remotest idea how many hardcore gamers over more than a decade have worried about these bugs? How many have abandoned playing just because they thought the game had become unplayable in the face of all the potential abuses? And you want me to compare that to one single unlawful popdrop??? You yourself with your neat little trick for bypassing minefields have already done far more damage than any number of these podrops could ever do!!!

Quote:

Quote: #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? Whip all you like. Deduce all you like. The difference between mac's "careless mistakes" and my "cheating" are obvious. I doubt you'll understand the difference even if God comes forward and says so.

As well He may. You are a cheater, by all definitons of the term. He is only by yours. With all the weight your righteous self-serving word carries. The funny thing is, it's you who seem to ignore the real difference between him and you. But you actually don't, do you? You know full well that the only rotten apple in all of this is you, not anyone else!

Quote:

Quote: #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. Kudos to you. When I've been saying non-stop that Slim and me have taken 2011 as the base rule set, why are you using another set of rules to make a point? Here you go. For your easy reference : http://starsautohost.org/sahforum/index.php?t=msg&th=462 9

These aren't the Duel Club's rules, you manipulative as$hole! These are just the 2011 Tournament "special rules"! How can you be so stupid? How can you think we are so stupid???

Quote:

Quote: #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 saying about "he who lives in a glass house..." Sigh. What a load of crap. It's based on wrong logic and falities and a complete disconnect with reality. Simply answered, A> Refer list of games above. B> Refer 2011 rule thread. I tire of saying the same thing to you again and again and again.

These weren't questions. That was advice. You didn't take it. Shame on you.

Quote:

Quote: The "repair after gating loophole" is a quite recent addition to the "standard", partly because it's hard to policy, partly because it's considered relatively minor. But the "mine damage dodge"? An almost complete unknown until very recently, widely acknowledged as a bug, and considered dangerous You say "overgating loophole" is irrelevant when my opponent is an IT who'll have cheap gates EVERYWHERE, while "mine damage dodge" is "considered dangerous" when I (in caps) am an SD? Is your logic working correct? Do you have a grasp of what you are talking about in this example? Are you trolling for the sake of post counts?

I didn't say "irrelevant"! I said "relatively minor". Can't you read? Or are you trying to be insulting just to gain points?

So let's assume for a moment that you're stupid enough (even when we all know you aren't) to believe IT has the superior cheat. And you still choose the SD race. Because you think your opponent knows and will use the little trick that nerfs minefields. Yeah, right. Not even you would be that stupid!

No. You are smart enough to realize that of all the PRTs in the game, SD is the least worried about that particular bug. Because SD can lay mines faster and deeper than the rest. Because SD has exploding minefields. Because SD can lay anywhere in a turn, without warning, and thus permanently replenish its minefields. Which no other race can do. So your "generous" offer to "level the playing field" was not just a dishonorable attempt at corruption, but also an insidious scam! You tried to dupe your unwary opponent in much the same way you are now trying to dupe everyone else, showing your greatest fault as if it was your biggest saving grace, laughing all the way, thinking we all are the unthinking idiots you seem to think we are!

Note: that some people are actually idiots *AHeMaglHeM* doesn't disprove the point.

Quote:

Quote: And you point is what, then? That you cheated but can escape the label, while Mac didn't actually cheat but gets labeled because everybody must now accept a new and unworkable set of rules? INTENT INTENT INTENT. APOLOGY FOR CONFUSION. LACK OF DEFINED RULE SET. EXPLANATIONS. Hence the difference. and yes. Mac broke rules repeatedly and had the bad grace to abuse the gains he made after cheating. All the traits of a cheater. Show me any of these traits in my actions.

I have already. Intent? Repetition? Lack of verifiable repentance? Bad grace? You are doing exactly the same. Disprove it, you scammer, rules-breaker, self-serving hypocrite self-proclaimed king of all words, creator of your own logic and rules, cheater!

Quote:

Quote: #2 Perhaps what you did isn't too shameful, after all the explanations, apologies and attempts at fixing. But what you're doing now? Quite debatable, particularly if "intent matters" as you insist. It started of as trying to explain to you the meaning of cheating. Now, I'm just answering your tirade of questions.

You have answered only a couple of them all, and not the most important.

And why would you presume to be in the position to show me or anyone what cheating is and is not? Because you know it firsthand? Or perhaps because the current (old) state of affairs doesn't suit you? Please, I pray, tell us what your good reasons are, dear sir.

And don't even think you can dupe us all, not for a moment.

Quote:

Quote: #4 Facts? You don't care about facts, all you care about is "intent". Fact 1: Mac didn't (ab)use a game bug. Fact 2: You did. These are the facts! I don't diffrentiate b.w a game bug and a host rule. Not if I'm left that the other guy got an advantage over me. I didn't cheat with an intent to gain an advantage over slim. He agrees with me. You are just being contrary for the sake of arguing.

You don't differentiate. That's clear. You have a big problem there, little cheater.

You say you weren't after "advantage". Well, that's hard enough to believe, and I no longer believe it. Make me, if you can!

And lets not forget that you just evaded another question. How very clever of you to refuse explaining yourself.

Quote:

Quote: #5 Much as I want to believe you, I can't, or at least not yet. Not bothered anymore. Quote: #6 Oh yes you have. Or you would if everyone else was to accept your position. I gain nothing. Except recognition that I was foolish to spend 30+ posts on trying to explain something to you. Despite knowing that you probably won't agree around post #10 (and stating it as well).

Yup. Recognition you'll get. Don't you fret about that, cheater.

Not to mention the awesome disrespect you show to everyone else by insisting it was your place, or even your right, to "explain" what should and should not be considered cheating, cheater.

Quote:

Quote: #7 I'm being deliberately soft and gentle in handling your case. Sad that you don't seem to value it. Thanks m.a@stars. From now on I'll respect your knowledge of stars strategy and game playing but not your definitions and leniency for game-rule cheaters.

See above. Another trait of the hardened rules-breaker and cheater. Coincidence?

It's not my call or your call or anyone else's call but the game hosts to deal with and if necessary punish all rule-breakers. I believe most cases (including Mac's) are harsly enough rewarded. That is the old way, and it is still better and far more equitable than yours, even if yours wan't just another scam.

Plus, oh the irony! That you yourself are revealed as one of them dirty unforgivable rule-breakers!

Quote:

Quote: #8 Whoa! You've already sentenced Mac (and his ilk)!! #8a Yeah, shame! Yes. I also did the same to the game host too. If you think I'll spoil future games due to my "carelessness", please feel free to club me in the same group. Quote: ]#10 Did I break any DEFINED/AGREED rules? Just curious. Did Mac break any DEFINED/AGREED rules? Hmm.. Did he apologise? He actually through his actions told everyone to bugger off, as he decided to use those MT ships.

Already shown above. And you're still trying to malign Mac by ignoring what happened after he was caught using those MT goods. Even if his apologies had been as false as yours, he still submitted to the ruling of his host. Those were his actions. You instead, tried to dupe everyone else into allowing your continued (ab)use of your dirty little trick, and still try. So your actions, or at least your words, condemn you, cheater.

Quote:

Actually by 2450, the cost of 5 shielded DD's wasn't a problem. The problem was that they would have to be built and sent to the front. If he had said in 2420 that it's not allowed, I wouldn't have done it.

You didn't bother to ask for a clarification when it was the time to do so! Were you so afraid the answer wold be no? And of course you insist that's just the kind of behavior that makes others so evil.

Quote:

Quote: #2 when in doubt about what the standard is, ask. When you don't know what rules the rest of players use, ask! When you saw those "tricks" used, did you realize they were somewhat out of the official game mechanics? Perhaps even saw them described as "standard"? Did you just think that if everybody else was cheating too (even though you didn't quite bother to check) then cheating was ok? Do you really think that is how things are supposed to be? Yes, I knew they were listed as "bugs", but they were allowed under the standard list. Are you telling me that despite 2 out of 3 hosts in my gaming experience allowing the 4 "cheats", I should have still asked about it? Sigh. You keep talking as if you forget that my gaming experience said it was a common practice. You then build on your 'incorrect' example and try making a point.

Your gaming experience said everybody was a cheater, so you grew used to it. So much so that now you try to pass it off as harmless, while the really minor offences you try to make appear as the only true evil.

And even that with only half, or less than half, or your alleged gaming experience actually backing you up.

Quote:

Quote: #3 I'll copy and paste your own words: "rule breaking" and "breaking" "rules" I ask again, just to reply to your point. WHICH RULE DID I BREAK? Also, when it was clarified, I DISCUSSED IT WITH MY OPPONENT AND CAME TO AN AGREEMENT.

Those you broke by ignoring them, are still broken. That agreement you proposed was just a scam. Cheater and rule-breaker.

You didn't even learn from your opponent what the uses of mercy and lenience were. You got them, even if you didn't deserve them. But you're so arrogant and coldhearted as to deny them to others.

Quote:

Quote: #1 CHEATER That means atleast 25 other players are cheaters too. And the hosts. Thanks M.a@stars.

Yup. That's exactly it. I hope most of them already have or will soon renounce the (ab)use of bugs in their games. They'll have, after all, the benefit of the doubt, and the fact that that particular dirty little trick has been only known and listed for a year or so. You had the same benefit, but not any longer. At least not while you're incapable of showing the same courtesy to others.

Quote:

Quote: #2 "everything not expressly allowed is forbidden" That is the standard. Except for rule-benders and breakers, of course! It was allowed in my games. If I apply your logic for duels, Chaff is NOT EXPRESSLY ALLOWED. I'm just repeating myself and you are coming up with incorrect and long-winded replies. Didn't you just give a really long explanation above why 3 cheats should be allowed, even if they don't come under your "everything not expressly allowed is forbidden". You contradict yourself. Where have I contradicted myself, in my previous forests of words?

Chaff is expressly allowed in the Standard Disclaimer. Which anyone with enough common sense would assume applies to the "straightforward games" that Duels after all are. But not you. Which leads me to guess it's perhaps due to a lack of common sense in you.

Chaff is expressly allowed in the Standard Disclaimer to solve the old controversy about it being or not being a cheat. Explicit mention and permission save time and useless scuffles, because if not, there'd always come some little manipulative scoundrel such as yourself and claim that CHAFF WAS NOT ALLOWED.

I explained at some length exactly why the 3 commonly allowed cheats are commonly allowed, and anybody bothering to read the Standard Disclaimer for regular games would naturally assume they applied to all games UNLESS EXPLICITLY STATED OTHERWISE. Duel games claim to be "straightforward". No one claims they're "everything goes" games but you. Confused? Ask! Already asked? Try at least to understand before refusing all explanations!

But it's not a difficulty in understanding or a lack of common sense, is it? It's because the explanations don't suit your goal. You don't like the "game" and are stubbornly trying to change the rules. Well, no luck with that!

You contradict yourself when you claim you're all good but others such as Mac are all bad. Pot. Kettle. Black.

Quote:

Quote: #3 chaff is not a cheat. Its being called "chaff cheat" is just an historic artifact. Still, some people want "no chaff" games. Confusing? Maybe. So ask around. "Repair after gating" is a mostly-tolerated cheat. Some people still forbid it. Split-Fleet-Dodge is a major PITA without known good fix or workaround. And yes, a great many people have argued against it over the years, many still think it should be banned and punished, and you'll think the same the day you meet someone who knows how to (ab)use it. You may have a point in that some people play duels in order to test things they wouldn't dare in normal games, or even seek duels with less restricted rules than usual. Still, I haven't seen the "in duels anything goes" rule. So allow some because they have been discussed enough, or they are tough to police?

A bit of both, and perhaps more. Things evolve, even the Standard Disclaimer. Flamewars flare up, armistice ensues. Not everything is 100% logical, but at the very least it has some explanation. A matter perhaps for another thread, if you will.

Quote:

Anyways, I repeat I did it only because it was a standard feature for me just like the original 3. I'm not fighting to continue using it in future games. Just explaing that I wasn't wrong in this case.

But you were! Every bit as wrong as you now claim Mac is! Cheater! Rule-Breaker!

Quote:

I've seen the split fleet dodge been used to it's extreme form and I did the same in Big Vanilla. It was chaff scout skirmishing, over 20 years, with 50-75 chaff each turn giving a lot of intel which wouldn't have been possible otherwise. Also a lot of baiting and successful attacks by sending loaded freighters with attack fleets at a slow speed and retreating the loaded freighter while sending the lighter attack fleet on. I took it as part of the game and planned accordingly.

That is a perfect example why many players (including me) would like to see the targeting engine fixed for good and the splitting nonsense stomped once and for all. And you pulled it all off against a bunch of novices. How very great.

You wouldn't be so happy if you had confronted experts.

It's not part of the game. It's a big problem of the game engine that's been "fixed" repeatedly but is still buggy. It has its uses. Some claim it adds flavour, or even "realism" but there is really no definite consensus about it. Allowed because no one knows what to do about it.

Quote:

Quote: #4 Not bad, but still a cheating doesn't cancel another cheating. It wasnt cheating because no rules were broken. Read above post for details.

It was. They were. Read above.

Phew! That really saves time!

Quote:

Quote: #5 Again, not bad. You were forgiven. You probably want it forgotten. Yet you deny to Mac the same mercy. So you admit that your ulterior motive is that you don't want mac to be called a cheater. Not that you want the word cheater to be saved only for abusing game-bugs. /shame I repeat I didn't break a game rule. Mac did.

I YELLED it a whole thread and half ago! Both things, actually.

Mac is not a cheater because he didn't (ab)use any game bug. That's been repeated often enough already. Don't want to accept it? That's your problem. Want to offer a better solution? Do it. But this half-a#### scam of yours won't work. Not if it makes you good but makes bad others that are just the same as yourself, or even, all things considered, better than yourself.

Repeat yourself till you turn blue. A lie a thousand times repeated does not a truth make. A billion times. Whatever.

Quote:

Quote: #6 cheating versus breaking rules. You tried to fix it, and Mac's host has likely "fixed" it too. In their case the rules weren't entirely clear either. So what makes you so good and Mac so bad, then? Rules that mac broke weren't clear? hahahahahaha. As for #3 rule bending of mac, where he used MT ships.. where did mac's ethics go? That's what made him a confirmed cheater.

According to Mac and his host, no. There was some loophole which he abused. He got punished for it, and nobody else has a vote on that. Just like your own case. Except that you got out unscathed. and now you want to extend that happy outcome (to you at least) to everyone else. How very generous.

And you're again at apples and oranges. You say "rule bending" and then "cheater" as if there was some magical logic that allowed you to equate the two. There isn't. Try something else.

Unless it's a part of that awesome arrogance (or disrespect) that makes you deny that you cheated on top of breaking the rules (that you either didn't bother to learn or intently chose to ignore)

Quote:

Quote: #7 and it wasn't a stock apology either Because it wasn't a stock situation.

But it was a stock sarcasm. Which seems didn't work. Doh.

Quote:

Quote: Perhaps what you need is a heavy anchor dragging you to the bottom to never be seen again, since that's what you seem to think is good for others. And your "stand" would greatly benefit from a much firmer ground. You might have avoided the infamous "slippery slope", but you still insist on dragging others down with/before you. No, you're not done yet. No I don't. He didn't apologise, which was fine with me. If he had buried the 1st mistake and moved on without making a 2nd mistake, this wouldn't have been the case. if he had buried the 1st AND 2nd mistake and NOT TRIED BENDING RULES for his 3rd "pulling-up", this wouldn't have been my response.

So what? He broke the rules. Several times. He's been punished for it. What more do you want if you would accept none of it for yourself?

Quote:

I'm done, simply because you don't read posts properly. 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.

Shove your insults where they might matter, cheater. You duped me at first, but not anymore. I was foolish enough to try and help you, to see whether you were any worth, but not anymore!
(simple edit by Ron, as I don't like even simple cuss words on my forum)

[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