I'll bet the OP never thought his question was the net equivalent of kicking over an ant hill?

Once people start quoting dictionaries, the argument has outlived its usefulness.

There's always the encyclopedia to move on to

Actually, that might be a better place to find information on cheating than a dictionary.

I didn't have one handy, and apparently Wikipedia doesn't seem to qualify as an 'authority' on anything anymore.

It never did.

Not true. Its become an acceptable citation in many colleges.

Not true. Its become an acceptable citation in many colleges.

Yeah my son who's working on his masters has used it, and I asked him about it. He said as long as you check out the sources and such, it's completely valid as a source of information.

But again the real point is, that calling someone a cheater is IME always an accusation of dishonest behavior, and inherently carries a negative connotation to it. It is going to be very rare for someone to be called one and not either be genuinely offended or at least act offended... Because they were in fact cheating, but an innocent person will be offended at that accusation.

And again, there are going to be times where breaking the rules intentionally or not requires some sort of sanction perhaps even forfeiting the game because that is the only fair thing to do. But unintentional breaking of the rules does not require punitive sanctions which cheating does in fact require.

I still think this is being argued in a vacuum where players arent taking responsibility for upholding the rules for themselves and their opponent. I take a range bonus when I roll against my opponent's hlc - I am responsibile for catching it, as is my opponent. Both players simply paying attention will prevent most of these issues from ever even reaching the 'your a cheater' discussion.

I still think this is being argued in a vacuum where players arent taking responsibility for upholding the rules for themselves and their opponent. I take a range bonus when I roll against my opponent's hlc - I am responsibile for catching it, as is my opponent. Both players simply paying attention will prevent most of these issues from ever even reaching the 'your a cheater' discussion.

The problem is that people are playing the game and their attention isn't necessarily focussed on the number of dice being rolled only the outcome. I've been guilty of throwing too many greens in casual play vs a mangler. 4 range three attacks the greens should've been: 4-4-4-3. The last being the mangler. Instead I rolled all 4x4 greens. I didn't catch the weps change on the last attack and my OP missed the 4 greens on my last roll. I'm not sure if it happened more than once before it was caught and not really sure if it affected the game. It happens. Fortunately it was a casual game and nothing was at stake.

I wonder if Rapture would consider the active player cheating if he threw fewer reds than he should've?

I wonder if Rapture would consider the active player cheating if he threw fewer reds than he should've?

I have it on good authority that he would. But, what it means other than that is very little. The player only has to roll the the additional dice to bring him into compliance with the rules and be more careful in the future. Then, there are no issues.

I still think this is being argued in a vacuum where players arent taking responsibility for upholding the rules for themselves and their opponent. I take a range bonus when I roll against my opponent's hlc - I am responsibile for catching it, as is my opponent. Both players simply paying attention will prevent most of these issues from ever even reaching the 'your a cheater' discussion.

The problem is that people are playing the game and their attention isn't necessarily focussed on the number of dice being rolled only the outcome. I've been guilty of throwing too many greens in casual play vs a mangler. 4 range three attacks the greens should've been: 4-4-4-3. The last being the mangler. Instead I rolled all 4x4 greens. I didn't catch the weps change on the last attack and my OP missed the 4 greens on my last roll. I'm not sure if it happened more than once before it was caught and not really sure if it affected the game. It happens. Fortunately it was a casual game and nothing was at stake.

I wonder if Rapture would consider the active player cheating if he threw fewer reds than he should've?

Cheating and breaking the rules are not synonymous...at least, not to me, anyway.

Once people start quoting dictionaries, the argument has outlived its usefulness.

There's always the encyclopedia to move on to

Actually, that might be a better place to find information on cheating than a dictionary.

I didn't have one handy, and apparently Wikipedia doesn't seem to qualify as an 'authority' on anything anymore.

It never did.

Not true. Its become an acceptable citation in many colleges.

Not true. Its become an acceptable citation in many colleges.

Yeah my son who's working on his masters has used it, and I asked him about it. He said as long as you check out the sources and such, it's completely valid as a source of information.But again the real point is, that calling someone a cheater is IME always an accusation of dishonest behavior, and inherently carries a negative connotation to it. It is going to be very rare for someone to be called one and not either be genuinely offended or at least act offended... Because they were in fact cheating, but an innocent person will be offended at that accusation.And again, there are going to be times where breaking the rules intentionally or not requires some sort of sanction perhaps even forfeiting the game because that is the only fair thing to do. But unintentional breaking of the rules does not require punitive sanctions which cheating does in fact require.

In my masters program it's an automatic f if you site Wikipedia. Which was the same as it was when. I got my undergrad 10 years ago at a different institution. I have herd of professors who allow it but they are newer younger professors who don't believe in the validity of not using it. Age gap I always get the old foggies.

In my masters program it's an automatic f if you site Wikipedia. Which was the same as it was when. I got my undergrad 10 years ago at a different institution. I have herd of professors who allow it but they are newer younger professors who don't believe in the validity of not using it. Age gap I always get the old foggies.

Although unrelated if one wants to use Wikipedia as a reference most pages are really nice to provide the reference THEY use giving someone the next step up the reference ladder. Things just get interesting if you have a source cite a source that cites a third source that then cites the first source in some version. Maybe it shouldn't happen but if a bad seed gets introduced it could spread to others and when that work gets redone it may look at things based on the earlier work and continue to carry that bad seen.

In my masters program 8 years ago, I had professors who allowed it and others that didnt. When it comes down to it, beyond wikipedia, there are some really atrocious 'official' texts out there.

For your future benefit, understand that there are multiple sources of definitions for words from the English language.

1cheat

verb \ˈchēt\

: to break a rule or law usually to gain an advantage at something

... You do understand that the phrase "to gain an advantage" is a statement of intent, right?

Read it again.

I will help you forcus on the part that you missed:

USUALLY

Meaning something along the lines on 'generally, but not always.' So, intent is not a necessary element. Do you get it? If you are not going to put some effort into the discussion, the I am not going to waste my yime walking you through everything.

Well that is certainly how you seem to be reading it, in that one definition.

So lets modified it with your definition of Usually substituted in and see how it reads.

:to break a rule or law general, but not always to gain an advantage.

Now I read this to mean that the breaking of the rule or law does not always have to result in gaining an advantage but that the intent has to have been to gain one.

Maybe, as english is a tricky language with many nuances. As an adult I am missing something in my interpretation.

If only scrolling down on the Merriam-Webster definition you so kindly linked could shed further light on it.

Like if I were trying to explain it to a child, i may use this one;

CHEAT Defined for Kids

Now that seems to support my and Jeff Wilders reading of it and go against your interpretation of Usually being essential to exclude the intent of the act.

What about if we just looked at the Noun Cheat, maybe that could help us out?

Why, oh why, did you have to resurrect this thread? I thought it was dead and buried.

Why, oh why, did you have to resurrect this thread? I thought it was dead and buried.

Because another thread was started.