Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9725261" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I disagree with this assertion.Just because the books declare you can do it, doesn't mean it isn't cheating. Cheating is more than simply &quot;did you follow the rules?&quot; If someone developed a device that allows you to read other people's minds, and secretly used it in order to win at a poker tournament, do you think that they would not be classified as &quot;cheating&quot; just because the rules don't explicitly say that telepathy is cheating? Further, let's say you're in a chess tournament, and you learn only after that the waiver everyone has to sign actually included a deeply-buried clause saying that the referees may move any piece on the board to any location on the board that they could have reached by a valid sequence of moves. Would that not still be considered &quot;cheating&quot; by most people watching that tournament, even though technically speaking the rules specifically allowed for it?&quot;Cheating&quot; is not simply &quot;breaking an explicit rule&quot;. It is to participate dishonestly in some way. That's why we use it for related things, like breaking fidelity with one's significant other, or illicitly acquiring the answers to an exam in advance.Given the book itself includes mention of not telling the players you do this, that would seem to be an admission that it is illicit--even if it is recommended by the book text, it is a violation of some kind, something worthy of the players' ire, should they discover it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9725261, member: 6790260"] I disagree with this assertion. Just because the books declare you can do it, doesn't mean it isn't cheating. Cheating is more than simply "did you follow the rules?" If someone developed a device that allows you to read other people's minds, and secretly used it in order to win at a poker tournament, do you think that they would not be classified as "cheating" just because the rules don't [I]explicitly[/I] say that telepathy is cheating? Further, let's say you're in a chess tournament, and you learn only after that the waiver everyone has to sign actually included a deeply-buried clause saying that the referees may move any piece on the board to any location on the board that they could have reached by a valid sequence of moves. Would that not still be considered "cheating" by most people watching that tournament, even though [I]technically speaking[/I] the rules specifically allowed for it? "Cheating" is not simply "breaking an explicit rule". It is to participate dishonestly in some way. That's why we use it for related things, like breaking fidelity with one's significant other, or illicitly acquiring the answers to an exam in advance. Given the book itself includes mention of [I]not telling the players you do this[/I], that would seem to be an admission that it is illicit--even if it is recommended by the book text, it is a violation of some kind, something [I]worthy[/I] of the players' ire, should they discover it. [/QUOTE]

Verification