by wolfpack0530 on Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:19 pm
lots of good stuff in this one:
I laughed with i read the "burning hatred" bit. Timor of Shame was pretty good as well.
I think Army is overreacting a bit to the criticism, and jefjef is refusing to see that there are varying degrees of 'cheating'
1)There are those that cheat on purpose and know better. These are the players that CC is most anxious to catch. Call them cheaters, and foe them. Good idea!!
2)There are those that unmeaningfully and unknowingly break an obscure rule that is open to interpretation.
Ex. it is okay to bait and flame in game chat but not in the forums? Took me a while to figure that one out.
3)There are those that break a rule that they didnt yet know was a rule. They may or may not have benefited from the act, but they in know way knew they were 'cheating'. We must give these types of players a mulligan in situations like these. That is what the 'Warnings' are for. Once fully aware of the rule that they broke, then they should be held 100% accountable should they ever break that rule again.
Ex. Player A is pretty sure that secret diplomacy is against the rules, but he is not sure if the green player reads the chat and he really need to truce with him. So he proposes a truce on green's wall. He also posts the exact same truce word for word in the game chat. He figures that since he wasnt trying to be 'secretive' about it, that the wall post is okay because he didnt break the secret diplomacy rule. In this case, Player A should be warned that he should have just wrote (please check game chat) on greens wall, and not propose the truce there. But i wouldnt consider Player A to be a 'cheater' in this instance. And it would be a shame for him to be labeled as such for this mistake.
Jefjef, it seems like you would consider all three instances as examples of cheating. Is that correct, or do you allow for leniency in certain situations, where ignorance was the culprit and not foul play?
