[Discuss] Changing the definition of cheating

[Thomas Dalton]

> I'm thinking about changing the way we define "cheating" or "abuse".
> Basically, I'm thinking about saying something like:
>
> If the game mechanics allow it, and you know that it's not a bug, then
> it isn't cheating.

That would make it far easier to know if something is allowed or not.
It would require a lot of work on your part to make things that aren't
allowed impossible to do, though, but as you're the one suggesting it,
I guess you're ok with that.

The only issue is abuses which you haven't thought of yet - the
easiest way to deal with it that I can think of is to say that the
first person to use a new abuse gets away with it as a reward for
being so imaginative (unless it's such a severe abuse that it can be
punished under the social contract as making the game less fun for
other people) and then you code something to stop it working in the
future.

A list of things that aren't allowed but the game doesn't know about
would be good and would take much less time to put together. It does
go against the policy you've had in the past of "it's the spirit of
the rule that matters, not the interpretation that a team of lawyers
can come up with", though - I guess that's one of the reasons you've
"held back".


-- 
Unsubscribing and other list options:
http://news.battlemaster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss