neilhoward wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 21:02

While the definition is specific, its application is subjective (like the application of whiner or troll). In any exercise like this there will (I hope) be a spectrum of opinions.

And the wannabe judges don't even realize the depth of the minefield of pain they're getting themselves into.

Report message to a moderator

m.a@stars wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 14:23

I have been called a cheater myself in both these threads, entirely without reason and repeatedly. I have asked for apologies and received none, so what should I care about the whiners?

I apologize that somebody called you a cheater.

Report message to a moderator

m.a@stars wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 21:59

nmid wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 07:02 I agree.. but there's a difference between whiners/complainers/whistle-blowers/valid complaints. What do you consider this? Valid facts. Documented mistakes. Continued mistakes. Recorded punishments. Uncorrected rewards. Hmmmm. You lost me there. Care to elaborate?

I agree, that might have been a bit unclear.
I was referring to Mac's situation and Neil's post.

Neil made a post that had all the above points.
I won't call that whining.

Whining would refer to unsubstantiated complaints or petty snitching (not talking about the actual definition of high pitched tones etc).
Hence, in this case, I see no whining.

Report message to a moderator

m.a@stars wrote on Fri, 13 May 2011 00:53

Quote: calling those of us with different understandings of what it means to cheat "whiners" is insulting. I have been called a cheater myself in both these threads, entirely without reason and repeatedly. I have asked for apologies and received none, so what should I care about the whiners?

Because the "whiners" you refer to, never called you a cheater

Report message to a moderator

I cheated on a school math paper this one time back in Elementary school. I was probably like 6 years old or however old a first grader is.
Yup, I was a cheater.

At least the only person I hurt doing that was me because the kid I cheated off of got all the answers wrong and I learned nothing.

There was a picture of a house, tree, car, sun, person, sky and a few other things. Each thing had the math problem in that item. The answers were given on the side of the paper with a color that was appropriate for one item.

Well when I colored them in my people were green, sky was orange, tree was red. Nothing matched. My friend had randomly chose answers, and I payed for not being legit.

The teacher showed everyone both our pictures, pointing out how stupid it was to cheat. She didn't even care that my friend showed me his answers. She was going on about how I didn't even get one answer right and it was exact match to his. Yup everyone laughed and I knew that was the last time Id cheat.

I got pawned.

Just wanted to share that story. I was bored and It's not really relevant to anything but it does have a good lesson to be learned.
Sorry if I just wasted anyone time.

[Updated on: Thu, 12 May 2011 19:37]

Report message to a moderator

m.a@stars wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 22:26

nmid wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 06:57 I'm not talking if he did something horrible because of speeding. The point is that he speeded. So, if I'm reading you right, it's not the consequences but the mere fact of breaking the law that matters to you?

Yes. That's stage 1.
Stage 2 aka consequences is ofcourse more important, but I'm using my example to talk about what you would call Person A and Person B.
Being speedsters caused the accident.
Being cheaters caused either rectifiable or un-rectifiable effects.

I'm talking about terming people as cheaters.
(ps - note that I'm polite not to call minor unintended cheats as cheaters..)

Quote:

Quote: if no one cheated, then we won't have to talk about magnitude and the list-of-cheats. Only if a person cheats, do we talk about 'the level' of cheating. That's what you get when you start mixing all kinds of misdemeanors together. You are then forced to consider relative levels and magnitudes and whatnot.

ofc.. hence I say call the extreme level of cheaters as Abusers or hard-core cheaters.

Quote:

Quote: So you agree that a person has to be a cheater, in order to have cheated enough to break one of the "listed-cheats". "Enough"? Either he used one of the cheats (old or new) or he didn't. There's no "levels" of that.

True. that was my mouth adding an extra word.
Even if you take it away, my intent remains the same.
A person has to "break rules" to be called a cheater.
You just happen to consider the "listed rules/bugs", while I consider "host rules" as well.

Quote:

Quote: Similarly, he has to have cheated if he's broken host-rules as well. Only in your definition where it seems everything not in line with someone's rules (or wishes) is "cheating".

Not someone. Only the Host's.
It's simple m.a.@stars.. Why am I failing to get through to you?
The host set up the game. Meant to be played in a certain way. People agreed so they joined the game.

Quote:

Quote: So new players/hosts will know that the person might be "careless"/"cheating" in other games. Only in "special-rules" games, of course. And players/hosts in those need to be wary anyway. The "rule-bender/breaker" label used to be plenty enough for their convenience.

Sure.. rule bending I can take.
Rule breaking, not.
Rule breaking = cheating.
Pop dropping = Cheating
MT Catching = Cheating
Keeping MT ships after punishment = Rule bending/lawyering.

Quote:

Quote: Confused. Mac didn't break the "list". How's he a "cheater" as per your definition? We weren't talking here about Mac, but about your fancy listing of Quote: A cheater. A cheater who got caught. A cheater who got caught and continued bending rules to his advantage. A cheater who spoilt the game by using "many cheats"/"listed cheats". By my definition, only those who intentionally break host/game rules are cheaters. That doesn't make everyone a cheater. Once you throw "intentionality" into the mix, yes it does, because more often than not it'll be a subjective assessment, and there'll always be someone who'll take the hardest stance.

I'll just ignore anyone who calls me a cheater if he takes this "hardest" stance.. and I'll not be bothered by those players who believe this guy.
...After flaming the name-caller once

Quote:

Quote: I hope I don't have to state everytime that intent matters. Careless mistakes aren't the same as intentional rule-breaking aka cheating. Oh yes, you'll have, because that's what your newfangled definition entails. Careless != intentional != cheating or madness ensues!

Being careless 3 times in a row = not giving the guy to be careless again.
Here, mac wasn't careless. He cheated.
I see intent, you don't. That's fine... but you are in a very small minority.

Quote:

Quote: Well, as long as I get the chance to tell the next judge that it was on account of a rented car that malfu

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

nmid wrote on Fri, 13 May 2011 01:17

Neil made a post that had all the above points. I won't call that whining.

Perhaps that post wasn't, but then Neil has been a lot more reasonable than other posters...

Report message to a moderator

slimdrag00n wrote on Fri, 13 May 2011 01:33

At least the only person I hurt doing that was me because the kid I cheated off of got all the answers wrong and I learned nothing.

Not bad. Mine is about as sad if not more.

I spotted the kid at my side answering wrong a few questions. Very easy ones, at least to me. I tried to tell him the right answers, and of course the teacher caught me.

I got branded a cheater, and nobody would believe I wasn't trying to copy, not even the stupid as$hole I had been trying to help, which wasn't even one of my buddies.

I was lumped with the slow-learners, and it mattered nil that I got a 100% perfect test when I had to repeat it. First and last time.

Unless I'm perhaps making the same mistake again...

Report message to a moderator

Eagle of Fire wrote on Fri, 13 May 2011 02:15

They are thus not subjective in the least. There is no point in saying that Mac is not a cheater in this case.

Except that nobody outside that game cares or should even need to think about unraveling all the little details of its special rules, or the host's particular brand of justice, or the "damage" done, or the intent, or the whining, all just to be able to tell apart the real dangerous cheaters from the others.

Do you have the slightest idea of how many games with or without special rules have been played over the years, and how many people have angered others, and how many things have been said that the vast majority of players didn't need to worry about, because it didn't matter in the least? Go check the old threads, see how many like this one you can find!

But it now seems some people want to do a "service to the community" and get some poor sod labeled with all kinds of high-sounding words, crying wolf all the way, just so "everybody is warned in advance". And guess what? It still doesn't matter in the least, because if you play a special-rules game you need to be wary anyway, and in a normal game too, so what does anyone gain with all that public pilloring? Nothing, but you want to force everyone to wade thru all the little details of every trivial offense just in case?

Well, at least then everybody will know who the whiners are, and those are generally more annoying in or outside a game than the smartass that paid the penalty and kept the marbles anyway. So go ahead, make yourself a reputation, whistle-blower!

Report message to a moderator

Quote:

...I got branded a cheater, and nobody would believe I wasn't trying to copy...

And to this day you still have a problem with the meaning of cheating.
Just kidding.

[Updated on: Thu, 12 May 2011 22:09]

Report message to a moderator

BlueTurbit wrote on Fri, 13 May 2011 04:05

you still have a problem with the meaning of cheating.

Actually, it's with false accusations in general.

Report message to a moderator

nmid wrote on Fri, 13 May 2011 01:40

consequences is ofcourse more important

Phew! For a moment you got me to believe that you actually meant that all evildoers were the same!

Quote:

Being speedsters caused the accident.

Speeding around a school in an urban area caused the accident. The speedsters that did it on the autobahn in the middle of nowhere met no pedestrians.

Quote:

(I'm polite not to call minor unintended cheats as cheaters..)

Hopefully others will follow your example!

Quote:

ofc.. hence I say call the extreme level of cheaters as Abusers or hard-core cheaters.

Of course, now you need to redefine other words to fill the gaps that your initial redefinition caused.

Why throw overboard the perfectly valid labels that have been in use until now, just to end up using other labels to say exactly the same? For the confusion value?

Quote:

A person has to "break rules" to be called a cheater.

Here they have to do a bit more than that for everybody else to even bother noticing them. Rules-benders and breakers don't and shouldn't get the same level of attention, notoriety or punishment that true cheaters get.

Quote:

Not someone. Only the Host's.

And those of all the players in the game, particularly those who might feel wronged by any of a number of obscure reasons, and of everyone who happens by one of these silly threads to add their bit of gravel to the general stoning, and...

Start on that route and soon it will not matter anyway, because everyone will have been publicly listed and pilloried, and the only net result will have been that some whiners will have got their ego boosted with the blood of innocents, and the general amusement of those who know better.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Quote:

Sure.. rule bending I can take. Rule breaking, not. Rule breaking = cheating. Pop dropping = Cheating MT Catching = Cheating Keeping MT ships after punishment = Rule bending/lawyering.

So what? Each of those can be adequately punished in-game, even if some hosts are harsher than others. There's no need for all the public outcry and drama.

Unless... unless some players feel that the in-game punishment hasn't been enough, and, wanting to best their host, resort to public humiliation and gangbanging in order to inflict more damage to their enemy than the game's rules and host allow. And what should we call that?

Quote:

I'll just ignore anyone who calls me a cheater if he takes this "hardest" stance.. and I'll not be bothered by those players who believe this guy.

You seem to be getting it, finally!

Quote:

...After flaming the name-caller once

As long as it's in-game, and hopefully in-character... it can even be positive!

Quote:

I see intent, you don't. That's fine... but you are in a very small minority.

You think intent matters, I don't. There's plenty adequate punishment (already or soon to be dealt) for what Mac did. And it's not this. Whatever the whiners say, or how many they are, is entirely irrelevant.

Quote:

Fine with me

And what will you do if he thinks you're a serial cheater? Throw the dictionary at him?

Quote:

Time for a change then..

What change? You're proposing exactly the same thing in the end, with some changed words and a lot more hassle for much the same result.

Quote:

Intent. Intent. Intent. Once you cheat, you cheat. Call the extreme, abusers. Why give middle level cheaters the advantage of not calling them cheaters?

Simplicity, equity, custom, damage control, reputation protection, hassle, hosting space savings...

You: hardcore abusers, abusers, middle-level cheaters, cheaters, minor cheaters...

Me: cheaters, breakers, benders, careless, stupid, irrelevant...

... and guess what's easier to apply, is already in use, a lot more objective, and saves endless drama.

Quote:

I refuse to buy into the argument that new players can't change it, especially if they have a valid point of view. You are acting like the church against change. You've got a nice little world setup an

Report message to a moderator

nmid wrote on Fri, 13 May 2011 01:40

You are acting like the church against change.

And you're acting like Micro$oft. Oh, the humanity!

Report message to a moderator

heh. You know, when you quote and reply to each line, it takes away the "intent" of what the original paragraph or the entire post meant

I wouldn't have thought mac was a cheater if he pop-dropped by mistake, but after the MT meeting AND keeping the MT ships, I do.
If I play against him, I'll know that he's one who doesn't follow host rules.
Which is the same level of caution I'll have when faced by someone who abuses the "listed" cheats.

You seem to think that they are exclusive and have their own sub-sets, while I consider cheaters a broader set, which contains the sub-sets of rule-breakers and abusers.

You are doing the stars community a disservice by saying that rule-breakers are not cheaters, but you are entitled to your opinion, however incorrect it might be.
It shouldn't be considered right, just because it's being done the same way since ages....and truth be told, I don't see any other "old-timer" (heh) agreeing with your limited definition of cheating.

Well, I tried my best to convince you that cheating is cheating.
I'll be glad to continue this discussion some other time.

[Updated on: Fri, 13 May 2011 11:32]

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Fri, 13 May 2011 11:50]

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Sorry Nmid, but as you told me recently on MSN: you think that I am so serious all the time that you have a hard time understanding when I am joking.

Or in this case in particular, it was heavy sarcasm.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Why??? The edit button is one of the most useful options we have on the forums!

Many members would really gain in discovering it. **COUGHM.ACOUGH**

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator