20 coaches online • Server time: 07:54
* * * Did you know? There are 419541 active teams in FUMBBL.
Recent Forum Topics  Secret League zombie... | ramchop takes on the... | 4,000TV! |
2010-11-24 21:44:45
39 votes, rating 3.4
39 votes, rating 3.4
Cheating
So, recently a thread was locked on this subject. I'm not here to argue over whether the locking was justified, half the posts that appear to have caused it have been moderator editted since, so who knows what sort of things they were saying.
However, the debate on the subject was far from resolved, so I took the option of continuing it via PM. The response I received did not imply this was an unreasonable course of action, but it was certainly not a helpful response. If they had not the time to read it that would have been fine, but that was not the problem. Had it been an ordinary member of the community rather than an admin I would have had no expectations, but as it stands I'm rather disappointed.
As far as the issue itself goes, I'm not under the impression that it's a bigger deal than it really is, I mostly just like to debate. Indeed I take pride in and have been in the past recognised for my ability to distinguish a logical (even if ultimately incorrect) argument from a piece of garbage, whether my own or someone else's. Which is why the specific response I received was so deeply offensive.
So, I am reposting the contents here with three goals; that it be read by at least someone without such a closed mind, that it be judged for whether it really is an illogical piece of garbage, and that if there is a flaw in it someone might explain where it is so that I can learn and evolve.
Name removed to protect myself from accusations of making this personal. Please extend the thanks at the end to yourself if you reach it.
"""""""""
Hi [name removed]
First, a simple disclaimer; if you're not interested in continuing this discussion via PM, just say the word and I'll stop. In my view I was engaging in reasonable debate, not insulting anyone, and it was the actions of others that caused the thread to be locked, therefore I see no reason why I should stop. If that is not your view however then I can't do much about that. I apologise for the verbosity of this message, but please appreciate I am not creating a wall of abuse, but a well structured and rigorous (and therefore by necessity detailed) argument.
Firstly, I've made some real progress, in that I've understood a distinction you've been making which explains much of the previous confusion. You distinguish actions which directly make it more difficult for the opponent to harm players from actions which (possibly indirectly) manipulate the other player into choosing not to harm players. Both are seen by others as "strategic decisions", that "protect players" and are "not cheating", and those others put both types of action in the same camp. However you only apply those terms to the first type of action. Both interpretations are reasonable, but the difference was the source of a lot of the confusion in the thread.
So, I can now focus my attention on the following issue:
Why I think manipulating the opponent towards a decision which is of mutual benefit is not cheating, and the line should be drawn at collusion. Where the distinction is that collusion involves an agreement made with the opponent before the actions take place.
Firstly, I will say that I am not arguing for a change in the code of conduct. I read the code of conduct as meaning exactly what I am arguing for here. It says: "Arranged games (ie. playing to lose) will not be tolerated.". "Arranged" to me explicitly implies prior agreement, and therefore collusion. It then says "The same applies for coaches allowing each other to score extra touchdowns and all other SPP generating events.". "The same" to me, implies a similar arrangement just on essentially a smaller scale. To me then, to be "the same", prior agreement and therefore collusion is also required. Now you are welcome to interpret the wording differently to me, my point is simply that I am not arguing for a new rule, I am arguing to change from one reasonable interpretation of the rules to another.
To start off, here is a short list of some example actions:
* Aiming the kick, on T16, to the receiver.
* Choosing not to foul on T16.
* Choosing not to foul even at other times, in order to morally discourage the opponent from doing the same.
* Taking no actions on a turn, in order to make the point that you have stopped trying to recover the game so the opponent can stop fouling you now.
All of these are actions which don't in general make it actually any harder for the opponent to hurt your players. All of these actions help the other team. All of these actions are things which most people would do without considering themselves cheating. They are as much a part of playing bloodbowl as stalling and revenge fouling.
Blood bowl is not a zero-sum game. There are many situations where your goals are different to those of your opponent. That's part of the beauty of it, the rich interaction between the core game and the team building metagame. If I'd listed examples of things where players make things worse for each other it would have been a much easier and longer list. Mutual destruction is unarguably part of the game, but so is polite co-operation. It's very difficult to distinguish avoiding mutually destructive behaviour from polite co-operation. But there shouldn't be a need to.
In order to be cheating, you need to get some benefit out of it. If one player helps another, then it is not the player helping who is morally the cheat, but the player helped (although the helper might reasonably be punished for participating in the helped player's cheating). If the help was not asked for, then the helped player cannot reasonably be considered to be morally cheating either. This is the difference with collusion and arranged matches, the help in those cases was requested and agreed upon by both parties. This is when it becomes morally cheating.
Collusion may sometimes be difficult to detect, but it is certainly easy for us, as players, to avoid doing. It's a clearly defined line that we would have to explicitly choose to cross. Admins may wish to look for co-operation to detect collusion, and use co-operation as evidence for collusion, but it is the collusion itself that should be considered the cheating, not the co-operation.
So in summary:
* Bloodbowl is not a zero sum game, co-operation can be part of it.
* Co-operation is not morally cheating, but collusion is.
* Collusion is a better place to draw the line both morally and practically.
* It is reasonable to interpret the existing code of conduct wording as disallowing collusion specifically, and this is how I already interpret it.
Thank you sincerely for taking the time to read this argument.
All the best,
Irgy
"""""""""
However, the debate on the subject was far from resolved, so I took the option of continuing it via PM. The response I received did not imply this was an unreasonable course of action, but it was certainly not a helpful response. If they had not the time to read it that would have been fine, but that was not the problem. Had it been an ordinary member of the community rather than an admin I would have had no expectations, but as it stands I'm rather disappointed.
As far as the issue itself goes, I'm not under the impression that it's a bigger deal than it really is, I mostly just like to debate. Indeed I take pride in and have been in the past recognised for my ability to distinguish a logical (even if ultimately incorrect) argument from a piece of garbage, whether my own or someone else's. Which is why the specific response I received was so deeply offensive.
So, I am reposting the contents here with three goals; that it be read by at least someone without such a closed mind, that it be judged for whether it really is an illogical piece of garbage, and that if there is a flaw in it someone might explain where it is so that I can learn and evolve.
Name removed to protect myself from accusations of making this personal. Please extend the thanks at the end to yourself if you reach it.
"""""""""
Hi [name removed]
First, a simple disclaimer; if you're not interested in continuing this discussion via PM, just say the word and I'll stop. In my view I was engaging in reasonable debate, not insulting anyone, and it was the actions of others that caused the thread to be locked, therefore I see no reason why I should stop. If that is not your view however then I can't do much about that. I apologise for the verbosity of this message, but please appreciate I am not creating a wall of abuse, but a well structured and rigorous (and therefore by necessity detailed) argument.
Firstly, I've made some real progress, in that I've understood a distinction you've been making which explains much of the previous confusion. You distinguish actions which directly make it more difficult for the opponent to harm players from actions which (possibly indirectly) manipulate the other player into choosing not to harm players. Both are seen by others as "strategic decisions", that "protect players" and are "not cheating", and those others put both types of action in the same camp. However you only apply those terms to the first type of action. Both interpretations are reasonable, but the difference was the source of a lot of the confusion in the thread.
So, I can now focus my attention on the following issue:
Why I think manipulating the opponent towards a decision which is of mutual benefit is not cheating, and the line should be drawn at collusion. Where the distinction is that collusion involves an agreement made with the opponent before the actions take place.
Firstly, I will say that I am not arguing for a change in the code of conduct. I read the code of conduct as meaning exactly what I am arguing for here. It says: "Arranged games (ie. playing to lose) will not be tolerated.". "Arranged" to me explicitly implies prior agreement, and therefore collusion. It then says "The same applies for coaches allowing each other to score extra touchdowns and all other SPP generating events.". "The same" to me, implies a similar arrangement just on essentially a smaller scale. To me then, to be "the same", prior agreement and therefore collusion is also required. Now you are welcome to interpret the wording differently to me, my point is simply that I am not arguing for a new rule, I am arguing to change from one reasonable interpretation of the rules to another.
To start off, here is a short list of some example actions:
* Aiming the kick, on T16, to the receiver.
* Choosing not to foul on T16.
* Choosing not to foul even at other times, in order to morally discourage the opponent from doing the same.
* Taking no actions on a turn, in order to make the point that you have stopped trying to recover the game so the opponent can stop fouling you now.
All of these are actions which don't in general make it actually any harder for the opponent to hurt your players. All of these actions help the other team. All of these actions are things which most people would do without considering themselves cheating. They are as much a part of playing bloodbowl as stalling and revenge fouling.
Blood bowl is not a zero-sum game. There are many situations where your goals are different to those of your opponent. That's part of the beauty of it, the rich interaction between the core game and the team building metagame. If I'd listed examples of things where players make things worse for each other it would have been a much easier and longer list. Mutual destruction is unarguably part of the game, but so is polite co-operation. It's very difficult to distinguish avoiding mutually destructive behaviour from polite co-operation. But there shouldn't be a need to.
In order to be cheating, you need to get some benefit out of it. If one player helps another, then it is not the player helping who is morally the cheat, but the player helped (although the helper might reasonably be punished for participating in the helped player's cheating). If the help was not asked for, then the helped player cannot reasonably be considered to be morally cheating either. This is the difference with collusion and arranged matches, the help in those cases was requested and agreed upon by both parties. This is when it becomes morally cheating.
Collusion may sometimes be difficult to detect, but it is certainly easy for us, as players, to avoid doing. It's a clearly defined line that we would have to explicitly choose to cross. Admins may wish to look for co-operation to detect collusion, and use co-operation as evidence for collusion, but it is the collusion itself that should be considered the cheating, not the co-operation.
So in summary:
* Bloodbowl is not a zero sum game, co-operation can be part of it.
* Co-operation is not morally cheating, but collusion is.
* Collusion is a better place to draw the line both morally and practically.
* It is reasonable to interpret the existing code of conduct wording as disallowing collusion specifically, and this is how I already interpret it.
Thank you sincerely for taking the time to read this argument.
All the best,
Irgy
"""""""""
Comments
Posted by PeteW on 2010-11-24 21:59:26
Pie.
Or, just play the game and enjoy yourself. Thankfully, admins have enough common sense to distinguish unacceptable practise from normal enjoyment and use of the game and site.
This isn't the kind of thing that needs a detailed and protracted list of do's and don'ts. It is much better left alone.
If someone tries to be annoying by purposefully getting as close to breaking rules as they can to see what happens (I'm looking at you, sillySod) then we can all give them a collective slapping.
Now Irgy, fancy a game?
Or, just play the game and enjoy yourself. Thankfully, admins have enough common sense to distinguish unacceptable practise from normal enjoyment and use of the game and site.
This isn't the kind of thing that needs a detailed and protracted list of do's and don'ts. It is much better left alone.
If someone tries to be annoying by purposefully getting as close to breaking rules as they can to see what happens (I'm looking at you, sillySod) then we can all give them a collective slapping.
Now Irgy, fancy a game?
Posted by JHassler on 2010-11-24 22:00:10
Irgy, I paid attention to the thread on the subject. I believe the statment/stance that most had objection to was that there could be a black and white conclusion on cheating based on a single action; predominantly in the discussion, kicking the ball in a certain location to give the opposition a more likley retrieval. Personally, I took offense that it could be bluntly labeled as cheating when a host of circumstances surrounding the scenario would make all the difference.
Stated differently, a single action in a game should not be interpretted as cheating without context.
I know this doesn't find fault in your argument - on the contrary, it supports it - but I felt it was worth stating and wanted to let you know there was at least one other who agreed.
Stated differently, a single action in a game should not be interpretted as cheating without context.
I know this doesn't find fault in your argument - on the contrary, it supports it - but I felt it was worth stating and wanted to let you know there was at least one other who agreed.
Posted by Hero164 on 2010-11-24 22:15:28
Beedogs
Posted by Prinz on 2010-11-24 22:47:41
tl;dr
Posted by pythrr on 2010-11-25 01:06:01
I didn't read it. Enough already.
And yeah, Beedogs.
And yeah, Beedogs.
Posted by BiggieB on 2010-11-25 01:43:05
Not long ago, I realized trolling was here to stay. Furthermore, I realized that in order to deal with it effectively, I would have to stop seeing it in emotional terms and instead began to understand it as a sport and an art form. I traveled to the darkside of the internet where all of the greatest trolls are born and cut their teeth. There, I learned the ways of life ruination from the masters. I began to troll as well, all over the internets, refining until I too could make people cry over the internets and brutally destroy their souls in the most subtle of ways. There I earned my black belt in trolling.
Posted by fangbanger on 2010-11-25 01:56:50
If there a crime there ,I would see it as manslaughter compared to first degree murder, seeing as 1st degree is a thought out ahead of and before before the crime and the other being an accident that lead to the crime or would you see it as 2nd degree , being the decided to do it at the scene of the crime that thinking it out or planning it before?
Posted by Irgy on 2010-11-25 04:15:26
For what it's worth I'm genuinely not the least bit bothered that many people couldn't be bothered with the issue and don't want to read that much text. It's a lot of text, not everyone cares, not everyone has time, and it isn't that important. I get that, and I always got that. You can see I made such disclaimers in the PM itself. If you don't want to read it all then... well... you're probably not going to read this comment either are you :)
@JHassler: I don't think any "in game" action is ever cheating in fact. Cheating by necessity is actions outside the rules of the game, so the cheating itself lies entirely within the realm of the "context" as you describe it. In game actions are at best evidence of cheating. I think I'm kind of agreeing with what you say here, but taking it further than you do.
@BiggieB: Congratulations to you on your grading. If you're implying this blog is a troll, you are completely misconstruing my motivations. Otherwise I wish you the best of luck.
@PeteW: Thanks for a polite and well written pie. For what it's worth, I'm not arguing for a list of dos and don'ts, I'm arguing for a very simple general guideline, which is "collusion". I also do just get on with it and play in practice.
Overall my motivations are best summed up by this XKCD comic: http://xkcd.com/386/
@JHassler: I don't think any "in game" action is ever cheating in fact. Cheating by necessity is actions outside the rules of the game, so the cheating itself lies entirely within the realm of the "context" as you describe it. In game actions are at best evidence of cheating. I think I'm kind of agreeing with what you say here, but taking it further than you do.
@BiggieB: Congratulations to you on your grading. If you're implying this blog is a troll, you are completely misconstruing my motivations. Otherwise I wish you the best of luck.
@PeteW: Thanks for a polite and well written pie. For what it's worth, I'm not arguing for a list of dos and don'ts, I'm arguing for a very simple general guideline, which is "collusion". I also do just get on with it and play in practice.
Overall my motivations are best summed up by this XKCD comic: http://xkcd.com/386/
Posted by Mr_Foulscumm on 2010-11-25 09:40:39
TL:DR
Posted by Kelkka on 2010-11-25 11:39:40
From what I read, I think Shadow gave you the perfect guideline.
This is my interpretation of the thread:
Play as you wish to play, if you want to be polite or save your players on LoS, feel free to. Nobody is going to report that, and if somebody really does, no action will be taken.
BUT the wording will stay like that, so when somebody DOES cheat, there is valid ground to judge him.
Stuff like this is hardly ever black and white, so rules have to be sometimes a bit gray. Just trust the fair judgement of admins and yourself.
This is my interpretation of the thread:
Play as you wish to play, if you want to be polite or save your players on LoS, feel free to. Nobody is going to report that, and if somebody really does, no action will be taken.
BUT the wording will stay like that, so when somebody DOES cheat, there is valid ground to judge him.
Stuff like this is hardly ever black and white, so rules have to be sometimes a bit gray. Just trust the fair judgement of admins and yourself.
Posted by TheCetusProject on 2010-11-25 11:42:38
My favourite part of that thread was the apparent implication that the act was against the rules but you would never get punished for it. What's the point in defining it as against the rules, then? Especially when it was such a weird interpretation of the rules anyway, backed up by an utterly illogical argument.
Someone stop this madness.
Someone stop this madness.
Posted by Calcium on 2010-11-25 11:43:57
cry moar?
Play your own game and shut the hell up
Play your own game and shut the hell up
Posted by f_alk on 2010-11-25 13:02:32
Thank you for this post - your comments in the thread were all well put.
From this you can guess that I am totally agreeing with you on this topic, especially your example of choosing not to foul to put moral pressure on your opponent is very good.
Did you get a reply to it at all?
I also agree with TheCetusProject about the sense of a rule, but I am confused as one rule-enforcer says it would not be punished, and the other one displayed a very strict interpretation of the rule.
From this you can guess that I am totally agreeing with you on this topic, especially your example of choosing not to foul to put moral pressure on your opponent is very good.
Did you get a reply to it at all?
I also agree with TheCetusProject about the sense of a rule, but I am confused as one rule-enforcer says it would not be punished, and the other one displayed a very strict interpretation of the rule.
Posted by shadow46x2 on 2010-11-25 18:24:59
first off...you're right in that collusion should be punishable...
....
but that's about the only point in your blubbering that you're correct...
------------
Firstly, I will say that I am not arguing for a change in the code of conduct. I read the code of conduct as meaning exactly what I am arguing for here. It says: "Arranged games (ie. playing to lose) will not be tolerated.". "Arranged" to me explicitly implies prior agreement, and therefore collusion. It then says "The same applies for coaches allowing each other to score extra touchdowns and all other SPP generating events.". "The same" to me, implies a similar arrangement just on essentially a smaller scale. To me then, to be "the same", prior agreement and therefore collusion is also required. Now you are welcome to interpret the wording differently to me, my point is simply that I am not arguing for a new rule, I am arguing to change from one reasonable interpretation of the rules to another.
------------
here's your first point of fail...
you're applying "the same" incorrectly....
you are basically replacing "the same" with "allowing each other to score, etc etc"....instead of conversely, "coaches allowing each other to score extra touchdowns, etc etc, will not be tolerated"...
in this simple code, and if you read it correctly, instead of mangling it like you're doing, it reads very clearly....
Arranged games will not be tolerated - if arranged games are viewed, they are not tolerated and will be punished...
The same applies for coaches allowing each other to score extra touchdowns and all other SPP generating events. - the same, meaning no tolerance, will be applied to coaches participating in SPP generating events....
see how simple that is to comprehend?...it's a shame that you chose to complete botch this very simple reading, as it looks like that's the entire crux of your misunderstanding...
two other failures here...
-------------
* Choosing not to foul on T16.
* Taking no actions on a turn, in order to make the point that you have stopped trying to recover the game so the opponent can stop fouling you now.
-------------
not fouling on T16 is hardly similar to helping your opponent to score...in this community, it has become a point of contention because people do it unnecessarily, as you stated for "revenge", or for lulz...but there's no benefit to either side...the fouler, nor the foulee, gains benefit, since it's a perpetual league...
in a closed league environment, fouling on T16 is pretty common, because you're competing for an end goal, and kicking the other team when they're down is just smart tactics...
now, taking no actions on a turn(for example, not getting up when the opponent is stalling) *IS* against the rules, and has been punished before...so again, not really sure why you're throwing that out, when it obviously hinders your point of view....
failure #3
--------------
In order to be cheating, you need to get some benefit out of it. If one player helps another, then it is not the player helping who is morally the cheat, but the player helped (although the helper might reasonably be punished for participating in the helped player's cheating). If the help was not asked for, then the helped player cannot reasonably be considered to be morally cheating either. This is the difference with collusion and arranged matches, the help in those cases was requested and agreed upon by both parties. This is when it becomes morally cheating.
--------------
if i move all of my players to the sidelines, and allow my opponent to score....who's cheating?...it has to be someone, because that act, in itself, is blatantly cheating, and i highly doubt anyone can logically argue against it...
is the opponent the one cheating?...well..he didn't ask for me to do it, and i didn't offer it....your first statement implies, he's the one cheating...but anyone with any common sense would tell you, "no, he's not at all, are you daft?"
ok then, am i cheating?...well by your first statement, i'm not cheating, because i'm not gaining any benefit out of it...except maybe the appreciation of my opponent...
common sense will tell you, well of course i'm cheating...but it's not collusion or an arranged match...because no words passed to make it something anywhere remotely related to that...
cheating doesn't require two people to take part....one person can cheat without the other person knowing...just like i can allow you to score, and it's still cheating..
so by application, if i give my opponent the best opportunity to score(intentionaly kick it out of bounds, provide no defensive intrusion to the goal, etc etc), yes..it is cheating, despite the opponent not being a part of the setup, it's still cheating...
failure #4(nice way to gather the fail at the end, btw)
--------------
* Co-operation is not morally cheating, but collusion is.
* Collusion is a better place to draw the line both morally and practically.
* It is reasonable to interpret the existing code of conduct wording as disallowing collusion specifically, and this is how I already interpret it.
--------------
co-operation doesn't require a verbal agreement...i think it's safe to say that the majority of coaches on this site, have a game end goal of winning....
so if i help you to that goal, without your agreement...it's co-operation without collusion....you didn't agree to it, but i'm doing it anyways to benefit you...
collusion is *not* a better place to draw the line....you seem to think this whole entire argument is black and white...either it's cheating or it's not...
what you don't seem to grasp, or you want to ignore, is that the only way it would be black and white is if every rules violation was decided on by an autonomous robot...and this is where the crux of your entire argument fails, because there are people behind the decisions...people who have good judgement, and common sense, or else they wouldn't be in the position they are...
the admins are good people...they haven't, and aren't going to start, punishing every incident by the letter of the law...while yes, woodstock may state "yes it's cheating" did you ever stop to think that the admins, when asked about a rule, verbally toe the line on the books, because they're required to, but when faced with making a judgement on a violation, they exhibit judgement & common sense on a case by case basis?...
the rules, on paper, have to be black and white so that the administration staff can have elbow room to deal with situations that don't perfectly fit into one of the cubby holes of the listed rules...
any site will tell you that the rules are set in stone, and violating them is a punishable offense....but any site will also bend the rules for the benefit of the community, for offenses that really aren't a problem....
example...
say i lay down for an entire match, and allow my opponent(without any previous agreements) to score 8 times....cheating, right?...of course it's cheating...
now let's say i've already scored twice, and i'm letting my opponent score once, so they don't feel bad about a shut out....cheating, right?....by your definition, "no, it's not cheating, there's no collusion!"....but by the letter of the law, it is cheating, and it is the exact same situation as above, except it's only once, instead of 8 times...
now, what's an admin going to do when it comes to that?....the first instance?....congrats, enjoy your retired team...
the second instance?..."kudos for being nice, but you really shouldn't do that, as per the rules..enjoy your day!"
see what i'm getting at?....the rule you are raging against, applies to both situations...but since there's a human behind the rule making the final decision on violation....the human administrator can decide, on a case by case basis, what is really a problem, and what needs to be changed...
---stop removing the human element from this entire situation, because it is the *most* critical portion of this entire whiny, non-issue---
the worded rule itself is a guideline, as are *all* of the rules, to allow the administrators a skeleton frame to work within...no admin on this site is going to go rule-nazi and ban every single coach on here who allowed the opposition to make a completion....
i've repeated this sentiment over and over....
get over it, people
....
but that's about the only point in your blubbering that you're correct...
------------
Firstly, I will say that I am not arguing for a change in the code of conduct. I read the code of conduct as meaning exactly what I am arguing for here. It says: "Arranged games (ie. playing to lose) will not be tolerated.". "Arranged" to me explicitly implies prior agreement, and therefore collusion. It then says "The same applies for coaches allowing each other to score extra touchdowns and all other SPP generating events.". "The same" to me, implies a similar arrangement just on essentially a smaller scale. To me then, to be "the same", prior agreement and therefore collusion is also required. Now you are welcome to interpret the wording differently to me, my point is simply that I am not arguing for a new rule, I am arguing to change from one reasonable interpretation of the rules to another.
------------
here's your first point of fail...
you're applying "the same" incorrectly....
you are basically replacing "the same" with "allowing each other to score, etc etc"....instead of conversely, "coaches allowing each other to score extra touchdowns, etc etc, will not be tolerated"...
in this simple code, and if you read it correctly, instead of mangling it like you're doing, it reads very clearly....
Arranged games will not be tolerated - if arranged games are viewed, they are not tolerated and will be punished...
The same applies for coaches allowing each other to score extra touchdowns and all other SPP generating events. - the same, meaning no tolerance, will be applied to coaches participating in SPP generating events....
see how simple that is to comprehend?...it's a shame that you chose to complete botch this very simple reading, as it looks like that's the entire crux of your misunderstanding...
two other failures here...
-------------
* Choosing not to foul on T16.
* Taking no actions on a turn, in order to make the point that you have stopped trying to recover the game so the opponent can stop fouling you now.
-------------
not fouling on T16 is hardly similar to helping your opponent to score...in this community, it has become a point of contention because people do it unnecessarily, as you stated for "revenge", or for lulz...but there's no benefit to either side...the fouler, nor the foulee, gains benefit, since it's a perpetual league...
in a closed league environment, fouling on T16 is pretty common, because you're competing for an end goal, and kicking the other team when they're down is just smart tactics...
now, taking no actions on a turn(for example, not getting up when the opponent is stalling) *IS* against the rules, and has been punished before...so again, not really sure why you're throwing that out, when it obviously hinders your point of view....
failure #3
--------------
In order to be cheating, you need to get some benefit out of it. If one player helps another, then it is not the player helping who is morally the cheat, but the player helped (although the helper might reasonably be punished for participating in the helped player's cheating). If the help was not asked for, then the helped player cannot reasonably be considered to be morally cheating either. This is the difference with collusion and arranged matches, the help in those cases was requested and agreed upon by both parties. This is when it becomes morally cheating.
--------------
if i move all of my players to the sidelines, and allow my opponent to score....who's cheating?...it has to be someone, because that act, in itself, is blatantly cheating, and i highly doubt anyone can logically argue against it...
is the opponent the one cheating?...well..he didn't ask for me to do it, and i didn't offer it....your first statement implies, he's the one cheating...but anyone with any common sense would tell you, "no, he's not at all, are you daft?"
ok then, am i cheating?...well by your first statement, i'm not cheating, because i'm not gaining any benefit out of it...except maybe the appreciation of my opponent...
common sense will tell you, well of course i'm cheating...but it's not collusion or an arranged match...because no words passed to make it something anywhere remotely related to that...
cheating doesn't require two people to take part....one person can cheat without the other person knowing...just like i can allow you to score, and it's still cheating..
so by application, if i give my opponent the best opportunity to score(intentionaly kick it out of bounds, provide no defensive intrusion to the goal, etc etc), yes..it is cheating, despite the opponent not being a part of the setup, it's still cheating...
failure #4(nice way to gather the fail at the end, btw)
--------------
* Co-operation is not morally cheating, but collusion is.
* Collusion is a better place to draw the line both morally and practically.
* It is reasonable to interpret the existing code of conduct wording as disallowing collusion specifically, and this is how I already interpret it.
--------------
co-operation doesn't require a verbal agreement...i think it's safe to say that the majority of coaches on this site, have a game end goal of winning....
so if i help you to that goal, without your agreement...it's co-operation without collusion....you didn't agree to it, but i'm doing it anyways to benefit you...
collusion is *not* a better place to draw the line....you seem to think this whole entire argument is black and white...either it's cheating or it's not...
what you don't seem to grasp, or you want to ignore, is that the only way it would be black and white is if every rules violation was decided on by an autonomous robot...and this is where the crux of your entire argument fails, because there are people behind the decisions...people who have good judgement, and common sense, or else they wouldn't be in the position they are...
the admins are good people...they haven't, and aren't going to start, punishing every incident by the letter of the law...while yes, woodstock may state "yes it's cheating" did you ever stop to think that the admins, when asked about a rule, verbally toe the line on the books, because they're required to, but when faced with making a judgement on a violation, they exhibit judgement & common sense on a case by case basis?...
the rules, on paper, have to be black and white so that the administration staff can have elbow room to deal with situations that don't perfectly fit into one of the cubby holes of the listed rules...
any site will tell you that the rules are set in stone, and violating them is a punishable offense....but any site will also bend the rules for the benefit of the community, for offenses that really aren't a problem....
example...
say i lay down for an entire match, and allow my opponent(without any previous agreements) to score 8 times....cheating, right?...of course it's cheating...
now let's say i've already scored twice, and i'm letting my opponent score once, so they don't feel bad about a shut out....cheating, right?....by your definition, "no, it's not cheating, there's no collusion!"....but by the letter of the law, it is cheating, and it is the exact same situation as above, except it's only once, instead of 8 times...
now, what's an admin going to do when it comes to that?....the first instance?....congrats, enjoy your retired team...
the second instance?..."kudos for being nice, but you really shouldn't do that, as per the rules..enjoy your day!"
see what i'm getting at?....the rule you are raging against, applies to both situations...but since there's a human behind the rule making the final decision on violation....the human administrator can decide, on a case by case basis, what is really a problem, and what needs to be changed...
---stop removing the human element from this entire situation, because it is the *most* critical portion of this entire whiny, non-issue---
the worded rule itself is a guideline, as are *all* of the rules, to allow the administrators a skeleton frame to work within...no admin on this site is going to go rule-nazi and ban every single coach on here who allowed the opposition to make a completion....
i've repeated this sentiment over and over....
get over it, people
Posted by f_alk on 2010-11-25 20:05:14
shadow wrote:
say i lay down for an entire match, and allow my opponent(without any previous agreements) to score 8 times....cheating, right?...of course it's cheating...
now let's say i've already scored twice, and i'm letting my opponent score once, so they don't feel bad about a shut out....cheating, right?....by your definition, "no, it's not cheating, there's no collusion!"....but by the letter of the law, it is cheating, and it is the exact same situation as above, except it's only once, instead of 8 times...
--------
it would be the same if and only I had already scored 9 times in the first example. In your version of the first example, you don*t play to win. In the second you still do.
say i lay down for an entire match, and allow my opponent(without any previous agreements) to score 8 times....cheating, right?...of course it's cheating...
now let's say i've already scored twice, and i'm letting my opponent score once, so they don't feel bad about a shut out....cheating, right?....by your definition, "no, it's not cheating, there's no collusion!"....but by the letter of the law, it is cheating, and it is the exact same situation as above, except it's only once, instead of 8 times...
--------
it would be the same if and only I had already scored 9 times in the first example. In your version of the first example, you don*t play to win. In the second you still do.
Posted by easilyamused on 2010-11-26 00:04:02
..........please stop.............
/me goes and sits in the corner
/me goes and sits in the corner
Posted by TheCetusProject on 2010-11-26 11:18:31
The idea that moving all your players out of the way and letting your opponent score is always obviously cheating is very strange.
It's not against the Blood Bowl rules, so it's not cheating for that.
It's not obviously against fumbbl rules ("allowing each other" is ambiguous, also "extra" is a bit confusing) so it's not obviously violating them.
It's sometimes the best thing you can do for your team and doesn't stop you from winning, so it's good play.
I remember being four or five touchdowns up against one of those weak Khemri coaches who have no chance of winning against me but are quite effective at hitting things with mummies and then fouling them. At this point, with about four turns remaining, I might have been able to manage about 6 SPPs if I'd really tried, but I would have been running serious risk of losing at least one good player. So I just kept everyone out of mummy range, didn't threaten the cage in any way, and let him score. I would go so far as saying that calling this cheating is morally wrong.
It's not against the Blood Bowl rules, so it's not cheating for that.
It's not obviously against fumbbl rules ("allowing each other" is ambiguous, also "extra" is a bit confusing) so it's not obviously violating them.
It's sometimes the best thing you can do for your team and doesn't stop you from winning, so it's good play.
I remember being four or five touchdowns up against one of those weak Khemri coaches who have no chance of winning against me but are quite effective at hitting things with mummies and then fouling them. At this point, with about four turns remaining, I might have been able to manage about 6 SPPs if I'd really tried, but I would have been running serious risk of losing at least one good player. So I just kept everyone out of mummy range, didn't threaten the cage in any way, and let him score. I would go so far as saying that calling this cheating is morally wrong.
Posted by spiro on 2010-11-26 15:34:07
Irgy, start write some book, this book should be big, heavy and nobody will read it because will be completely about nothing, however probably will be written correctly.
Posted by Prinz on 2010-11-26 19:55:07
Ohhh, sick burn from spiro!
Posted by Naru1981 on 2010-11-27 16:56:17
Or we could just remember this is just a game and when we turn off the computer we go back to real life and REAL problems.
A set of rules have been written. Why argue about them?
If you cant enjoy the game without having to argue over the rules then stop playing.
A set of rules have been written. Why argue about them?
If you cant enjoy the game without having to argue over the rules then stop playing.
Posted by EvolveToAnarchism on 2010-11-30 01:55:31
Off all this discussion, the one thing I find most amusing is that some people find kicking the ball to the corner to be more like cheating than paulhicks self-admitted "cheating".