Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="woodelf" data-source="post: 2820985" data-attributes="member: 10201">Sure, that's a reasonable point, and one i generally agree with. How is that a counter-argument to cheating in such a way that  it makes the game more challenging for the cheater, or causes failure for the cheater where abiding by the rules would've resulted in success?Again, you're reading more into the question than is there. You've just redefined "cheating" as "cheating in a way that is taking glory/limelight/capability away from other players". Now, it may well be that that the vast majority of cheating that occurs in RPGs is of this type. That doesn't mean that it's part of the definition of cheating. In fact, personally, i read "minor cheating" as explicitly excluding this sort of behavior. That is, if it does any of those things, it's not "minor". My reflexive definition of "minor" in this context is "causes no negative repercussions for the other players, is not noticable (i.e., does not produce results that can't be explained without cheating or are obviously anomolous), does not gain benefit for the cheater, and doesn't step on any one else's toes".Now, a couple people have said that the very act of cheating, even if they don't know about it, violates the "no negative repercussions" standard. I'm not convinced; but, i can certainly accept that they are working from a compatible definition of 'minor', they just have a different assesssment of the criteria, not a disagreement about what those criteria are. So, do any of the "anti-cheaters" in this thread see my definition of what constitutes minor cheating, above, reasonable? And, given that definition (IOW, it is not spoiling anyone's fun, and it is undetectable except by constant oversight), would you still object to minor cheating?</blockquote>

Verification