just for clarification I am not accusing anyone of cheating, but I did find something's odd. that's why I started the topic for guidance in the future . in the future if something like this happens again ill request one set of dice. thank you all for input , and please don't call people names for their opinions this is a community that needs to be helpful and respectful of others in said community.

just for clarification I am not accusing anyone of cheating, but I did find something's odd. that's why I started the topic for guidance in the future . in the future if something like this happens again ill request one set of dice. thank you all for input , and please don't call people names for their opinions this is a community that needs to be helpful and respectful of others in said community.

I think it is worth questioning and I want the person to pick a die from a set at random, even a small subset, so it's not just 'one' die.

A player must have the intention to break the rules in order to be a cheat.

There really isn't a definite answer as to whether intent is required for cheating based on the various definitions of the word, but there is a pretty clear distinction between 'cheating' and 'being a cheat.' The latter includes or infers intent while the former doesn't necessarily require anything other than violating the rules.

However, what are we calling it when a player unintentionall uses Crackshot twice because the failed to discard it the first time? 'Breaking the rules?' Breaking the rules is cheating. You can argue that ignorance or stupidity should prevent the use of the word 'cheating,' but that is just an over-sensitivity to the word. Unknowingly cheating should result in the forfeit of the games won while unknowingly cheating, but it does not carry the same punishment as intentionally showing up with loaded dice, which would probably be a bar from competing in the future.

However, what are we calling it when a player unintentionall uses Crackshot twice because the failed to discard it the first time?

We are in fact calling that a mistake, and one that can either be easily rectified or else both parties missed it and the game state can not be restored.

There is such a thing as an honest mistake, and only when it becomes a pattern can the TO reasonally make call it cheating.

So no it's not cheating it's a mistake, it's only cheating when done intentionally. Here's how merriam-webster.com defines it, both of which require intent to actually apply.

a : to practice fraud or trickery

b : to violate rules dishonestly <cheat at cards> <cheating on a test>

The fact that you don't get this means I hope you never are the TO for a tournament, because the damage you'd do to a community is truly astounding.

I mean should someone be kicked out of the tournament because they roll one too many dice? Perhaps they should be banned from the store completely if they bring a 101 point list and no one notice it until after the 2nd game.

Cheating is only whether you are trying to have an affect, outside the rules, and whether it is feasible that you could. If both of those are true, you're cheating.

That is not right. There is a difference between attempting to cheat and actually cheating. Lets say that Player A brings loaded dice to a tournament and accidentally switches his dice with Player B before the first round starts. A and B play through the tournament with A using regular dice and B using the loaded dice. A attempted to cheat but was not successful. B did not intend to cheat, but cheated regardless of intent.

So, let's get this straight ... we're playing poker. I attempt to palm an Ace, and fail, but you see me make the attempt.

I wasn't cheating?

... Really? You're gonna stick with that?

However, what are we calling it when a player unintentionall uses Crackshot twice because the failed to discard it the first time?

We are in fact calling that a mistake, and one that can either be easily rectified or else both parties missed it and the game state can not be restored.There is such a thing as an honest mistake, and only when it becomes a pattern can the TO reasonally make call it cheating. So no it's not cheating it's a mistake, it's only cheating when done intentionally. Here's how merriam-webster.com defines it, both of which require intent to actually apply.a : to practice fraud or trickeryb : to violate rules dishonestly <cheat at cards> <cheating on a test>The fact that you don't get this means I hope you never are the TO for a tournament, because the damage you'd do to a community is truly astounding.I mean should someone be kicked out of the tournament because they roll one too many dice? Perhaps they should be banned from the store completely if they bring a 101 point list and no one notice it until after the 2nd game.

I feel these "what if" scenarios are unfair as he already clarified in his previous posts the difference in consequence between an incidental and purposeful mistake. Namely that the later would carry the harsher penalty.

That is not to say there shouldn't be consequences for a player acting outside the ruleset divorced from the determination of if they were violating the rules intentionally.

Should a player be DQd for rolling too many dice? Once, no. Multiple times after being warned, then yeah the DQ now becomes reasonable. Illegal list and banned from the store? Once, of course not (though you probably will get DQ'D for that anyway). Do it multiple times, and yeah the store may ask you to not come back.

[Misquote of the article on the correlation of religiosity and intelligence.]

No. The correlation was with religiosity and education in African cultures. Not with intelligence.

And that's aside from the fact that we are, presumably, talking about Western X-Wing games. I mean, maybe not, but I personally haven't played X-Wing in Africa. (I did, however, see Kristen Bell's and Dax Shepherd's "Africa" video, which was adorbs.)

I feel these "what if" scenarios are unfair as he already clarified in his previous posts the difference in consequence between an incidental and purposeful mistake.

But he seems quite willing to have someone forfeit a game for a mistake, because anything contrary of the rules is cheating, intentional or not, even if you're not aware of the mistake it's still cheating. So not only is intention irrelevant, so is awareness. Apparently you're guilty of cheating even if you're not aware that you were breaking the rules.

So that means anytime anyone does anything wrong, regardless of intention or awareness they need to be punished for it. Which is an attitude that I find highly troubling, and not even remotely suitable for someone running a tournament.

Based on his statements in this thread, he clearly believes in some sort of zero tolerance stance when it comes to cheating, so no I don't think it's at all unfair. Anyone who makes even a simple mistake once should in fact be punished for it.

Sure the nature of the punishment may vary but when forfeiting a game for a single mistake is the starting point, there's not much place left to go.

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

ecause anything contrary of the rules is cheating, intentional or not, even if you're not aware of the mistake it's still cheating. So not only is intention irrelevant, so is awareness. Apparently you're guilty of cheating even if you're not aware that you were breaking the rules.

The Oilers cheated. They broke the rules. Their fate would be in the hands of the NFL, but their unawareness and lack of intent changes nothing. Some would likely try to sugarcoat it and say that the head coach was, deep down, a good person who donated to the poor every Easter and that he even started a recreation football league in seven small towns in the Mid-west, so we should label his violation of the rules a 'mistake' in order to not hurt his tender feelings. But, he and the team broke the rules, which is cheating.

So, let's get this straight ... we're playing poker. I attempt to palm an Ace, and fail, but you see me make the attempt.

I wasn't cheating?

... Really? You're gonna stick with that?

You are not thinking. Poker is a different game. As soon as you removed that Ace so that it would not be returned to the deck, you broke the rules. So, your half-baked hypothetical is not an example of attempt.

I feel these "what if" scenarios are unfair as he already clarified in his previous posts the difference in consequence between an incidental and purposeful mistake.

But he seems quite willing to have someone forfeit a game for a mistake, because anything contrary of the rules is cheating, intentional or not, even if you're not aware of the mistake it's still cheating. So not only is intention irrelevant, so is awareness. Apparently you're guilty of cheating even if you're not aware that you were breaking the rules.So that means anytime anyone does anything wrong, regardless of intention or awareness they need to be punished for it. Which is an attitude that I find highly troubling, and not even remotely suitable for someone running a tournament.Based on his statements in this thread, he clearly believes in some sort of zero tolerance stance when it comes to cheating, so no I don't think it's at all unfair. Anyone who makes even a simple mistake once should in fact be punished for it.Sure the nature of the punishment may vary but when forfeiting a game for a single mistake is the starting point, there's not much place left to go.

Just because a mistake was honestly made, does not absolve a player from the consequences of that mistake. There are more then a few things in this game, just like every other game played in a competitive setting, that are either; egregious enough, abuseable enough, or unable to be remedied in a fair manner that should result in a player receiving a game loss. That game loss coming without any need to consider the players intent to commit the error, just that they did commit that error. You don't have to be called a cheater to be open to sanctions within an event, you just have to do something that be worth of that sanction.

You're found to be fielding an illegal list, whether strictly illegal or not the last you registered, it doesn't matter if you intended to do so you are likely to be dropped from the event. Whether the TO believes you did so purposefully is likely going to matter as far as further action against you in concerned, but just the doing so at all (even as an honest mistake) will have a consequence.

Say your damage deck is found to have extra cards in it. At best you are going to get a game loss, even if the TO 100% believes it was an accident. Again intent is irrelevant except to add to the baseline.

Is it needlessly punitive to go immediately to a game loss for routine play errors without prior warning on the subject, in my view yes. But you suggesting that lack of intent to break the rules or even ignorance in doing so, should absolve a player from being given a game loss on the subject is just as problematic as him suggesting that forgetting to discard Crackshot should result in an immediate game loss.

If I intend to break the rules, but it is not feasible for me to do so (lucky hat to gain dice-rolling advantage), I'm just dumb, not cheating.

If I do break the rules, but had no intent to do so (absentmindedly roll an extra green die at Range 3 against an HLC), I'm just mistaken, not cheating.

If I intend to break the rules, and it is feasible for me to do so (slide the dice off my hand in an attempt to avoid rolling blanks), then I am cheating.

I agree, mostly. The only thing I would say differently is that in case number two, I did actually cheat. It was an accident, I made a mistake... but I did break the rules. That being said, I also believe that there is a different punishment involved.

Cheating without intent, IMHO, deserves a warning/rule reminder. Consistently making mistakes (even legitimately with no intent to cheat) could certainly warrant a DQ and an instruction to get some more practice/read up on rules before the next time.

If I am intentionally breaking the rules to attempt to win, then definitely an immediate DQ is in order, with a "don't come back" shortly following if it proves repetitive.

Just because a mistake was honestly made, does not absolve a player from the consequences of that mistake.

Perhaps. But the point is a mistake is not the same thing as cheating, cheating isn't just making a mistake and doing something that is against the rules.

If someone rolls an extra die once, even if it's not caught in time to fix it. That is not cheating and that person should not suffer sanctions for that mistake.

If on the other hand they constantly roll extra dice, then they should be suffer some sort of consequences, but in that case it's because they most likely are trying to cheat, rather than making a mistake.

Typically an honest person won't make the same mistake several times.

you just have to do something that be worth of that sanction.

Sure there are going to be cases where intent doesn't matter, but in some of the cases you list the need to enact sanctions is to fix a mistake that can't be fixed in some other way.

If you have an illegal list, or damage deck, then perhaps you should have one or more of your games disqualified. However that is not what Rapture was saying, he was saying you are a cheater which carries an inherent nature of intent.

There's a rather huge difference between telling someone that they would have all their wins changed to losses because they were using an illegal list than calling them a cheater. Also in that case I'd say the TO needs to do something to address the harm to that person, since the TO is supposed to be checking lists before the event starts.

But you suggesting that lack of intent to break the rules or even ignorance in doing so, should absolve a player from being given a game loss

But I never said that. I never said there shouldn't be something done in the case of mistakes. Only that the person wasn't cheating. I also said that it was unnecessarily punitive to declare someone's game forfeit for attempting or even using crackshot a 2nd time. To be clear if it happens a 3rd or 4th time, then yes you have a problem, and even if you could prove it was an honest mistake, it would be a problem.

But on the other hand, let's not look at this as completely hypothetical... How likely is it really for someone to use crack shot a 2nd time and not get called on it, or roll an extra die, or even register a 101 point list and have the TO approve it. Damage decks should be checked out before the event starts as well.

Because if we use Raptures logic... Someone who picks up an extra die and rolls it completely by mistake, is subject to having that game forfeited, that means everyone should watch the other guy for the smallest mistake and call the TO over the moment it happens, so they can get a free win.

Tell me, who wants to play in an environment like that?

Although breaking the rules and cheating can sometimes be the same thing, one can be an honest mistake, while one can NEVER be.

I agree, mostly. The only thing I would say differently is that in case number two, I did actually cheat. It was an accident, I made a mistake... but I did break the rules.

Yes, you broke the rules, but you did not break the rules "to gain an advantage." There is an actual reason that phrase is in the definition of cheating. The reason it's there is specifically to distinguish "cheating" from "an infraction." "Cheating" requires intent. (Again, intent can be inferred. But intent is still necessary.)

Looks, since it's clear that logic and the parsing of plain English isn't going to convince anybody, let's try a fallacious appeal:

VanorDM and I agree on something . I'm not exactly joking when I observe that that fact alone should convince every last one of y'all.

The point myself, Jeff and Parravon are making may seem to be purely semantics but IMO least it's not. Cheating has a whole different contention then an honest mistake. Both can end up causing the same result, and a mistake can require some sort of sanction.

But that does not mean they are the same thing. Cheating by its very nature implies intent, and is an inherently dishonest and reprehensible thing to do. Making a mistake even one that gives you an advantage perhaps even lets you win the game is not the same thing, not if it was an honest mistake.

It may be that the only fair thing to do is to declare that game forfeit, but that doesn't mean the person who did it should be considered a cheater. Because cheating should never be tolerated and neither should a cheater.

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?

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.

Meaning something along the lines on 'generally, bit not always.' 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.

Please do waste your "yime." I'm enjoying your righteous attempts to dismiss intent as an element of cheating because you're not -- quite -- savvy enough to understand that " ... usually to gain an advantage" is not the same thing as "whether or not there was intent, and only if the rule-breaking was successful."

I'm still quite impressed by how, in your mind, a player can try to palm an Ace, but not be cheating because he is bad at palming cards. That's some seriously benevolent monk-like zen-BS mindset you've got there. (Or it's just another sort of empty mind altogether.)

I'm still quite impressed by how, in your mind, a player can try to palm an Ace, but not be cheating because he is bad at palming cards.

Yeah I don't see how anyone could reasonably claim that it's not really cheating if you fail at the attempt or don't win anyway.

Meaning something along the lines on 'generally, bit not always.' 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.

Please do waste your "yime." I'm enjoying your righteous attempts to dismiss intent as an element of cheating because you're not -- quite -- savvy enough to understand that " ... usually to gain an advantage" is not the same thing as "whether or not there was intent, and only if the rule-breaking was successful."

I'm still quite impressed by how, in your mind, a player can try to palm an Ace, but not be cheating because he is bad at palming cards. That's some seriously benevolent monk-like zen-BS mindset you've got there. (Or it's just another sort of empty mind altogether.)

Meaning something along the lines on 'generally, bit not always.' 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.

Please do waste your "yime." I'm enjoying your righteous attempts to dismiss intent as an element of cheating because you're not -- quite -- savvy enough to understand that " ... usually to gain an advantage" is not the same thing as "whether or not there was intent, and only if the rule-breaking was successful."

I'm still quite impressed by how, in your mind, a player can try to palm an Ace, but not be cheating because he is bad at palming cards. That's some seriously benevolent monk-like zen-BS mindset you've got there. (Or it's just another sort of empty mind altogether.)

I see why you would initially be confused, but what constitutes an attempt is pretty simple once it is explained to you. Take it back to the definition, one of which is:

1cheat

verb \ˈchēt\

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

There is one element there - to break a rule or law.

If you try to remove a card from a poker table and, instead of sliding it up your sleeve, slide it to the center of the table, what rule of the game have you broken?

If you have not broken a rule, then you have not, by the definition of cheating that is listed above, cheated. What you did do was attempt to cheat. Maybe a different definition with different elements would produce a result that matches your opinion on what should constitute cheating.

There isn't any "zen-BS" involved.

How do you not get that there is no "attempting" to cheat? When coupled with feasibility, the attempt (in other words, the intent to do it) is cheating . Success at it is irrelevant. Someone who fails when he tries to manipulate the dice is not an "attempted cheater." He is a cheater.

The distinction between "breaking a rule" and "cheating" is both clear and (even more important) useful. I can't figure out your motive for trying to muddy it. Do you have a motive, or do you honestly not understand it?

Ijust just gave you a definition of cheat that clearly shows that a violation of the rules is required for cheating to occur. If completion is required in order for a violation to occur, then of course it is possible to attempt that violation without actually completimg it. Go look up attempt crimes if you are having that much trouble understanding it.

What is breaking a rule of a game if not cheating? A mistake? An infraction? An error? An oversight? You are just dressing it up.

Do you have a motive, or do you honestly not understand it?

Humor me, what motive could one possibly have in this instance? Or did you just think that suggesting that it was possible would really round-out that feeble insult?

Using too many dice on an attack and using dice you loaded have to be viewed as different types of issus with different consequences. Observing the rules is each players responsibility and not just for their build but their opponents. The decloak of Whisper by my opponent wont typically benefit me, but I still help my opponent remember to decide to do it or not. Same with rebel captive, its not my responsibility to remember, but my opponents. This is one the reasons I usually find this game fun, players arent (in most cases) trying to win at all costs. If I accidently role too many dice against an HLC, we both need to catch it. If neither one does, I should not be dq'd and even if we both forget all game, mycopponent isnt handed a win even though I was technically breaking the rules.

They're called inchoate crimes, and believe me, I know far more about them than you ever will. There are actually very few of them, and the reason they have a special name is to specifically distinguish them from the majority of offenses.

Cheating is not an inchoate crime, any more than "battery" is an inchoate tort.

Take another look at the OP's posts. He was suspicious about a die that was lacking it's normal marking on one face. But the way the opponent kept it carefully separated from the rest, in it's very own compartment, AND only used it for rolling when he was on an obstacle just sets off all sorts of alarm bells. Why does this guy go to such measures? If I was TO at this event, I'd be doing more than just taking a picture of this die. And if I were to be playing this guy, I'd absolutely demand this die be checked out thoroughly and/or not used during the match. I'd demand one set of dice only, even if they're donated by different player. This guy clearly has knowledge that this die is different from the rest. When asked about it, he said "it always rolls terrible".

Just because someone said "it always rolls terrible" is far from proof they knew it was a loaded die or anything. That is just a common way to explain something that you think would be happening like "I always hit the red light" (besides it is a secondhand quote which is makes it likely misquoted). I own a die that is a little bastard, I hate him he goes out of his way to screw me over. To my knowledge, there is zero manufacturing issues with it but still, I never roll him for important things. I think he blames me for the scratch through his crit, but that was his own fault. Had I brought him to a tourney I would likely keep him out of my regular pool. All that is is simply superstition. If you are worried about a die ask to see it or have someone else look it over. However, its far more likely to be people having crazy superstitions than actively bringing weighted dice or anything.