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.

Regardless, that has nothing to do with the discussion. You claim to unterstand how attempt works in the US judicial system, but are hostile to the idea that failing to meet the elements of one of the definitions of cheating but having the intent to meet that element and taking an action of furtherance of doing so does not constitute an attempt, but constitutes cheating as per that definition. There is not a more simple example of attempt, so I don't know what to tell you.

Using this definition?

1cheat

verb \ˈchēt\

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

Did you break a rule or law? Yes. So, yes, you cheated. However, if you use another definition, you might get a different answer.

Those were pretty cut and dry, so humor me - what did you hope to show by having me answer?

I'd say if you break the rules, it really doesn't matter if it was an accident or a deliberate attempt to cheat, at least as far as in-game penalties are concerned. If you rolled an extra green die at Range 3 on an HLC attack, whether you did it on purpose or not, you still broke a rule. Where the cheating should come in is in dealing out long-term or permanent punishment (suspension or banning from tournament play).

Look at it this way: if I accidentally run into the quarterback after they throw or if I lower my head and nail them full speed after they throw, I'm getting a roughing the passer penalty either way. But the second one is probably also drawing me a fine and possible suspension.

Those were pretty cut and dry, so humor me - what did you hope to show by having me answer?

That your definition of cheating is completely bizarre, and in many cases literally backward.

Which -- thank you for your cooperation! -- we now all see with extreme clarity, and can move on without compunction.

Look at it this way: if I accidentally run into the quarterback after they throw or if I lower my head and nail them full speed after they throw, I'm getting a roughing the passer penalty either way. But the second one is probably also drawing me a fine and possible suspension.

Exactly. Because the first one is simply breaking the rules. The second one is cheating (assuming done intentionally, which I believe you wanted to imply). Cheating is, and absolutely should be, punished more harshly.

That's why the distinction exists between "breaking the rules" and "cheating." It is useful . There are certainly reasons for not wanting that clear distinction to exist. None of those reasons are admirable.

I'd say if you break the rules, it really doesn't matter if it was an accident or a deliberate attempt to cheat, at least as far as in-game penalties are concerned.

Breaking the rules needs to be addressed regardless of the intent. But there is a real difference between someone cheating and someone making an honest mistake.

If someone breaks a rule then you address the issue the best way possible to restore the game to a state of 'fairness'. But what you end up doing is going to depend greatly on the situation at hand.

So if someone rolls too many dice, they have to roll again. If that isn't an option you could remove or add a damage to compensate. If that's not an option you could either declare the game forfeit, or do nothing, depending on how much impact the error has.

Since you bring up football, it's like when a team declines a penalty because enacting the penalty would cause more harm than good. In X-Wing as an example I realize that someone has rolled too many dice because they had the Weapons Failure card. So the last 3 rounds they've rolled too many dice. But let's say they didn't actually do any damage in those 3 rounds. Is there a need to penalize them once the mistake is realized?

Let's say the ship was destroyed what about then? Or let's say I won anyway... do we need to sanction that person? Or what if they did 8 damage with that ship over 3 attacks? What if they won and that ship was the last one they had on the table?

All completely different situations that need to be dealt with differently for the same rules violation.

However on the other hand if someone is cheating, that means they're intentionally breaking the rules. In that case they do need to be penalized even if their attempt ultimately failed, because while it may not of worked that time, it may work next time. Or they'll find some other method.

It's like you said, there's a difference between running into the QB and putting down your head, the difference is intent, and rule violations need to be dealt with both based on intent, and the impact they have.

I guess what it comes down to. Is there anyone out there who honestly wouldn't have an issue with being called a cheater when they made an honest mistake?

Those were pretty cut and dry, so humor me - what did you hope to show by having me answer?

That your definition of cheating is completely bizarre, and in many cases literally backward.

Which -- thank you for your cooperation! -- we now all see with extreme clarity, and can move on without compunction.

My definition? Did you think that I made that definition up to frustrate you to the point that you would declare yourself the victor based on whatever scale you have constructed in your head?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cheat

As much as I hate to rain on your one man parade, just saying that you proved someone else wrong does not make it true.

As far as I know, Merriam-Webster is a reputable and reliable source of definitions. The fact that you don't like that definition, or the outcome that it produces, is a person problem.

Ha. Like what? You still haven't answered that question. Are you suggesting that my goal is to dramatically alter the definition of 'cheat' that the global X-Wing community uses so as to, at the events that I attend where the TO is incapable of considering mitigating factors, I get all of my opponents disqualified after they roll an extra defense die because they incorrectly thought that they were at range 3? Be serious.

Are you suggesting that my goal is to dramatically alter the definition of 'cheat' ...

I don't know what your goal is. I don't even know you well enough to speculate as to your goal. But you are very clearly and very heavily invested in a definition of cheating that makes zero distinction between an accidental rule-breaking and an intentional rule-breaking, and yet creates something called "an attempt to cheat," that apparently cannot be punished.

We now know that, by the bizarre definition in which you are so invested, a person is not a cheater, no matter what his intent and the feasibility of his success, unless he succeeds at whatever rule-breaking he's trying to do. Similarly, we now now that, by the bizarre definition in which you are so invested, you have no problems with calling an accidental rule-breaker a cheater.

That's very, very, very odd. Like I said, none of the reasons for clinging to that position -- at least that I can think of -- are admirable. But your specific reason? I have no way of knowing. (I'm not even sure you do.) I wish I did, because I think it would be interesting.

Relax. I am not invested. It is a definition. It is nether good nor bad - it simply is.

Now that you have moved on to attacking the a dictionary's definition instead of still trying to prove me wrong, I don't know what to tell you. I suggest writing a letter ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/contact-us ). Maybe you can get them to change the definition, since you feel so strongly about it. I recommend continuing the exasperated tone, the mischaracterizations, pivoting, and questionable use of italics. It helps to identify your argument as credible and well-thought-out.

...you have no problems with calling an accidental rule-breaker a cheater.

Of course I would not have a problem calling someone who breaks the rules a cheater. As your familiarity with criminal law will tell you, being guilty of a crime, under a regime that doesn't have any common law or statutory affirmative defenses, requires only that the offence include the elements of the crime. So here, our crime, cheating, has one element under the definition that I provided, which is that the accused breaks the rules/laws. So, if a player breaks the rules, that player is cheating.

So, if a player breaks the rules, that player is cheating.

That's the takeaway, folks: if you accidentally roll one too many green dice for defense, you're a cheater. Thus spake Rapture.

BTW, if anybody is interested, Wikipedia's article on cheating is pretty decent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheating

Here's the first line about cheating in sports, games, and gambling:

" Cheating in sports is the intentional breaking of rules in order to obtain an advantage over the other teams or players."

I imagine folks -- well, most folks -- can now see why intent is necessary, and that success is not.

You must have missed it Jeff, but I asked you to back up your statement.

BTW, if anybody is interested, Wikipedia's article on cheating is pretty decent:

Ha. Right. Everyone run and check the Wikipedia article to define cheating. Skip the dictionary...

Ha. Right. Everyone run and check the Wikipedia article to define cheating. Skip the dictionary...

Some folks are intelligent enough that when a single definition results in absurdities -- as your chosen one does -- we recognize that the definition must be incomplete.

Despite the absurdities -- which, like certain presidential candidates, you embrace! -- you simply refused to move on from the definition in which you were invested.

This despite the fact, for example, that the question "what is cheating" in Google immediately produces the below. Note the requirement of intent. Note the lack of requirement of success.

For some reason, as I observed, you're heavily invested in a definition that erases the clear and useful distinction between "breaking a rule" and "cheating." Why do you think you're so attached to doing that?

(BTW, in the interests of fairness, I will cop to being heavily invested in a definition of cheating that distinguishes itself from honest mistakes. And I know precisely why: I make mistakes, but I don't cheat. I would imagine that most of us that play X-Wing fall into that description. Of course, some of us might not.)

Jeffrey, dictionaries define words - not Wikipedia.

Ha. Some people are intelligent enough to reject definitions that they do not like? There is nothing 'absurd' about the meaning of a word. That is ridiculous. I gave one definition, you gave another. The difference is that I am not insisting that your dictionary should change (despite the fact that it doesn't even require breaking the rules in order to be considered cheating).

PS - Still missing that quote, Jeff. You can either find it or cop to being full of it.

Just dropping this in here for reference purposes:

Oxford Dictionary
cheat verb
[NO OBJECT] Act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage,
[WITH OBJECT] Gain an advantage over or deprive of something by using unfair or deceitful methods; defraud
cheat noun
A person who behaves dishonestly in order to gain an advantage. An act of cheating; a fraud or deception.

Collins Dictionary
cheat verb
1. to deceive or practise deceit, esp for one's own gain; trick or swindle (someone)
2. (intransitive) to obtain unfair advantage by trickery, as in a game of cards
3. (transitive) to escape or avoid (something unpleasant) by luck or cunning

cheat noun
1. a person who cheats
2. a deliberately dishonest transaction, esp for gain; fraud
3. (informal) sham
4. (law) the obtaining of another's property by fraudulent means

Cambridge Dictionary
cheat verb
to behave in a dishonest way in order to get what you want
cheat noun
a person who behaves in a dishonest way; something dishonest that makes people believe that something is true when it is not

Webster’s Dictionary (printed version)
cheat verb
to defraud, to swindle; to deceive; to play unfairly
cheat noun
a fraud, deception; a person who cheats

I think we can safely say that intent is a major factor in regards to whether somebody cheated or not. The definitions provided by Parravon make that quite clear.

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

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

I totally agree. I just dropped that to stir the pot!

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.

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.

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.

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.

'Lucky dice', if they work they make you look like a cheat, and if they don't they make you look like a total nutter(who believes in lucky dice).