[Discuss] Changing the definition of cheating

[Robert Croson, Jr]

On 11 Oct 2006 at 18:20, Tom wrote:

> I've had something on my mind for a long time now. I've held back on it 
> for various reasons, but I think it's time we discuss it.
> 
> 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.

Personally, I think this is a great idea. Leaving it up to a judgement call by the 
players is not a good idea. Even leaving certain things up to the Titans is not a 
good idea, as they don't have the time or background necessary to make some 
of the judgements necessary. Things like that could possibly involving combing 
through thousands of messages from multiple realms. Not to mention that, as 
far as I know, the Titans process does not allow for the accused to provide a 
defense.

The recent debates over the capital movement systems go a long way to show 
how different people view the issue. From the outside looking in, it would 
appear that just about *every* capital move has some strategic elements. 
These are very easily pointed out, whereas any possible RP justification may 
have been built up in small pieces over a very long time. It only takes a single 
"Now our capital is closer to the front lines" comment by a random player to 
undo hundreds of RP messages. It would be very easy for someone to take the 
stance that the RP was manufactured to fit the tactical situation.

As Thomas Dalton says, this system will definitely require some work on the 
coding end to make sure that any unintended possibilities are closed off as soon 
as possible.



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