Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Well, those who choose to die on that hill you're seeing are seeing it called 'Defending the general community from name-and-shame epidemics'. Or 'Defending their beloved community from becoming witchhunters operating on heresay'. Or 'Defending their community from getting overly involved in a petty dispute that should be relegated to the two involved parties and the relevant TO".

It sure seems like a strange hill when you only see the label most appropriate to you.

Not saying I see any of those particular labels myself, but I'm seeing a lot of talking past eachother.

Bharring wrote:
Well, those who choose to die on that hill you're seeing are seeing it called 'Defending the general community from name-and-shame epidemics'. Or 'Defending their beloved community from becoming witchhunters operating on heresay'. Or 'Defending their community from getting overly involved in a petty dispute that should be relegated to the two involved parties and the relevant TO".

It sure seems like a strange hill when you only see the label most appropriate to you.

Not saying I see any of those particular labels myself, but I'm seeing a lot of talking past eachother.

You can absolutely disagree with the specific behaviour of the OP in this specific event without generally condoning cheating or generally victim-blaming, as some are choosing to do. Don’t pretend there are just two polar opposite stances here.

And if you choose to throw in wasp’s nest/genital fallacies (a thing I can’t believe I’ve typed twice) you’re just into the realm of utterly comical.

Yeah, that was over the top.

Lets try this: I forgot to lock my front door this morning.

Some kid tried the door, saw some stuff inside he liked, and stole it.

I should have locked my door. It's ok to tell me I should have locked my door.

The difference is who gets what 'blame'. IMO, blaming me for not locking my door is OK *provided* doing so in no way diminishes the blame on the kid for stealing my stuff.

In other words, the kid is 100% to blame. But somehow, I'm partly to blame, too. This works perfectly fine: contrary to most peoples' conception, blame (and glory) doesn't "add up" to 100%. It's entirely possible for the kid to be entirely at fault, and there still be things I could have done to prevent it.

Writing off locking my door as 'blaming the victim' incorrectly downplays what I must do, every day. It incorrectly claims that it's fine to not lock your door.

The problem with 'blaming the victim' is when you try to paint that kid as not a problem, because I should have locked my door. The kid is a thief. He needs to be punished. Just because his victim is stupid doesn't mean it's ok.

It’s not an entirely apt analogy though. Real-world crime and cheating at toy soldiers aren’t really the same thing at all. Cheating at a game is all on the cheater, as you’re breaking the social contact as well as the rules. You agree to abide by rules and a level of trust is assumed. One player is not obliged to police the other... that’s the difference here.

I hate to be "THAT GUY" but listen.

A good part of this game is knowing the rules for the units you are going up against. How can you realistically prioritize targets if you don't know what you are shooting at?

If someone tells me their non eldar infantry moves more than 6" I am going to ask them to show me. If someone is playing a forge world unit I've never seen - I am going to ask them to show me it at the start of the game. If they don't have rules for it - I am not going to play them - it's that simple.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
It’s not an entirely apt analogy though. Real-world crime and cheating at toy soldiers aren’t really the same thing at all. Cheating at a game is all on the cheater, as you’re breaking the social contact as well as the rules. You agree to abide by rules and a level of trust is assumed. One player is not obliged to police the other... that’s the difference here.

The social contract is kind of null and void when you go to a tournament. At tournaments - you are enemies.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I hate to be "THAT GUY"

No, you don't. That's what like half of your posts on this forum are doing. You LIVE to be TFG.

Bharring wrote:
Yeah, that was over the top.

Lets try this: I forgot to lock my front door this morning.

Some kid tried the door, saw some stuff inside he liked, and stole it.

I should have locked my door. It's ok to tell me I should have locked my door.

The difference is who gets what 'blame'. IMO, blaming me for not locking my door is OK *provided* doing so in no way diminishes the blame on the kid for stealing my stuff.

In other words, the kid is 100% to blame. But somehow, I'm partly to blame, too. This works perfectly fine: contrary to most peoples' conception, blame (and glory) doesn't "add up" to 100%. It's entirely possible for the kid to be entirely at fault, and there still be things I could have done to prevent it.

Writing off locking my door as 'blaming the victim' incorrectly downplays what I must do, every day. It incorrectly claims that it's fine to not lock your door.

The problem with 'blaming the victim' is when you try to paint that kid as not a problem, because I should have locked my door. The kid is a thief. He needs to be punished. Just because his victim is stupid doesn't mean it's ok.

This is an excellent way to describe it. It's okay to hold two specific views distinctly about a complex subject.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I hate to be "THAT GUY" but listen.

A good part of this game is knowing the rules for the units you are going up against. How can you realistically prioritize targets if you don't know what you are shooting at?

If someone tells me their non eldar infantry moves more than 6" I am going to ask them to show me. If someone is playing a forge world unit I've never seen - I am going to ask them to show me it at the start of the game. If they don't have rules for it - I am not going to play them - it's that simple.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
It’s not an entirely apt analogy though. Real-world crime and cheating at toy soldiers aren’t really the same thing at all. Cheating at a game is all on the cheater, as you’re breaking the social contact as well as the rules. You agree to abide by rules and a level of trust is assumed. One player is not obliged to police the other... that’s the difference here.

The social contract is kind of null and void when you go to a tournament. At tournaments - you are enemies.

Going to disagree about the social contract being void. Even in high level sports there is an expectation that neither team will cheat. I would say the same applies to 40k even in a tournament setting.

Yeah...no. Tournament games are not like casual games. In a casual game I expect that everyone is going to let you go back and fix a simple mistake.

You should actually expect that everyone at a tournament is trying to cheat you. They aren't your friends. They are trying to take your money. Not saying that you should be mean to them - I am very nice. I expect everyone is trying to cheat me though - that's why I catch lots of cheaters and never get cheated myself.

How do I do this? I know the rules to the frigging game.

 Xenomancers wrote:

The social contract is kind of null and void when you go to a tournament. At tournaments - you are enemies.

I can't agree with that. I understand where your coming from but I'll be a good sport even if it costs me a game, chances are I wont realize it's costing me the game anyway.
I can be nice and still pull your teeth out. Well, most of them any way.
I think that attitude of being ruthless is something most players out grow.

HoundsofDemos wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I hate to be "THAT GUY" but listen.

A good part of this game is knowing the rules for the units you are going up against. How can you realistically prioritize targets if you don't know what you are shooting at?

If someone tells me their non eldar infantry moves more than 6" I am going to ask them to show me. If someone is playing a forge world unit I've never seen - I am going to ask them to show me it at the start of the game. If they don't have rules for it - I am not going to play them - it's that simple.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
It’s not an entirely apt analogy though. Real-world crime and cheating at toy soldiers aren’t really the same thing at all. Cheating at a game is all on the cheater, as you’re breaking the social contact as well as the rules. You agree to abide by rules and a level of trust is assumed. One player is not obliged to police the other... that’s the difference here.

The social contract is kind of null and void when you go to a tournament. At tournaments - you are enemies.

Going to disagree about the social contract being void. Even in high level sports there is an expectation that neither team will cheat. I would say the same applies to 40k even in a tournament setting.

That's not really true. If you pay attention to sports at all. You will see people cheat all the time. There is holding on literally every play in the NFL. Performance enhancing drugs are a huge thing. Lance armstrong was captain America until everyone found out hes the biggest fraud in the history of the sport - then he said he cleaned his act up - and he was still cheating. I could go on and on. There is lots of cheating.

I'd even wager that a lot of the "famous" 40k players are also cheaters. Cheating is pretty rampant in my experience. It's why I don't like to go to tournaments. I'd rather play with my good friends. You know - the ones that I don't even have to watch roll dice. Because I know they aren't cheating me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 warhead01 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

The social contract is kind of null and void when you go to a tournament. At tournaments - you are enemies.

I can't agree with that. I understand where your coming from but I'll be a good sport even if it costs me a game, chances are I wont realize it's costing me the game anyway.
I can be nice and still pull your teeth out. Well, most of them any way.
I think that attitude of being ruthless is something most players out grow.

Just trying to make a point. Your opponent at a tournament - wants nothing more than for you to lose. They get a bigger score the worse you lose. It's not like a casual game with your buds...It is a lot different. No I am also not a dick. I am super friendly - there is a switch that goes off though when I suspect something is off. Fast dice me one time and I am watching every dice roll. That kind of thing. You have to be proactive to no get cheated sometimes.

If you cheat to win at something and thereby prove yourself, you prove only that you’re a fraud.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
If you cheat to win at something and thereby prove yourself, you prove only that you’re a fraud.

No argument there. The question is who gets to administer justice. The Authorities or the Mob?

 JohnnyHell wrote:
If you cheat to win at something and thereby prove yourself, you prove only that you’re a fraud.

I don't cheat - I am highly opposed to it. I'm sure lance armstrong didn't feel like a fraud after 7 tour de France wins. The dude literally didn't even think he was cheating. Obviosuly this isn't Tour de France - but it's the same concept. There will be cheaters because people prefer winning to losing. So watch yourself - watch everyone around you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
If you cheat to win at something and thereby prove yourself, you prove only that you’re a fraud.

No argument there. The question is who gets to administer justice. The Authorities or the Mob?

Who administers justice if you just sit there and let them cheat you? You go home a loser and they move on and win. Then you make a post and lots of people say..."hey that's too bad". That doesn't do much to fix the problem does it? The only one that can protect you from cheaters is you.

I find in any tournament setting ESPECIALLY if there are prizes to be had, cheating is pretty much a certainty, for many it seems to be a portion of their overall strategy.
I keep having visions of soccer/football with players going for a dive if an opponent so much as goes near them... some people "enhance" their interpretations of rules (Got one unit that moves 7"? They all do right??).

The game is entirely governed by rules.
It is dumb in the extreme to not have all your rulebooks (BRB and any Codex army you bring) and I agree that should be a disqualifier right there if you do not have it.
I swear every time I run into that kind of folk they run on the premise that not bringing the books give them permission to "remember" whatever rule they like.
NOTE: I have seen the angry aftermath of a Magic the Gathering player steals a card out of his opponent's deck and at some point demand a count for an illegal deck (if they know they are running a minimum size or playing Commander), it would be a simple matter to steal one of your opponent's books in 40k...

Seeing a few moments of "blaming the victim" this is how many people justify why they are allowed to cheat: if you are too "stupid" or too "meek" to say anything, you get what you deserve.
Let that one sink in a bit.
If you do not loudly and forcibly stand up for your rights and angrily nail that turkey to the wall, you do not deserve to play a game according to the rules but by whatever your opponent thinks best.
I am a bit beyond tired of that attitude, because nice polite people use that behavior as a last resort while the "cheater" it seems to be the first.
Worst thing is, you cannot pack your things up and refuse to play them since they would regard it as a win, it may even reward them to play worse so they can get others to quit.

I find I just point out the rules calmly and firmly, I can usually find the page to point to easily, lately it is easy to get hold of the opposing Codex's so I tend to bring those along.
Just having it next to you visible remarkably reduces the shenanigans, but not everyone likes to "waste" their money like that.

Yeah, call out the cheater but people really do make terrible errors so keep it in mind when pointing out "errors".
It becomes pretty apparent quickly (the loud confident voice speaking BS is easy to recognize) those who are accustomed to twisting rules.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
There are strange hills to choose to die on, of which defending and condoning cheaters is one, but layering that with wasp’s nest/genital-based false equivalence fallacies is amazing. Watching this guy dig that hole deeper and deepe is just super entertaining.

Fallacies or... phallicies?

Just harking back to the point about the apparently missing Codex - if the OP's opponent had lent his book to a friend, surely one of them shouldn't've been allowed to play in the event? Every tournament I've attended has mandated you have both the core rules for the game and all rules for your army with you, either in DTF or electronically. Is this something that has changed in the last couple of years?

 Dysartes wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
There are strange hills to choose to die on, of which defending and condoning cheaters is one, but layering that with wasp’s nest/genital-based false equivalence fallacies is amazing. Watching this guy dig that hole deeper and deepe is just super entertaining.

Fallacies or... phallicies?

Just harking back to the point about the apparently missing Codex - if the OP's opponent had lent his book to a friend, surely one of them shouldn't've been allowed to play in the event? Every tournament I've attended has mandated you have both the core rules for the game and all rules for your army with you, either in DTF or electronically. Is this something that has changed in the last couple of years?

I am sure the OP ment this => https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fallacy

"How do I do this? I know the rules to the frigging game."
You haven't shown that you *do* do this.

Trusting to my read of the maturity of this thread, I expect between 3 and 5 replies of the next 10 to include "hehe... he said DODO".

I think I subscribe to the realm of thought that this game isn't a tight enough rulesset to be SRZ BIZNIZ.

You shouldn't be watching like a hawk to ensure your opponent doesn't cheat you. At most, you should be watching like a hawk to ensure no mistakes are made. It might seem like a distinction without a difference, but the difference in mindset has a massive impact on the results. Because the social contract is probably the most important and comprehensive rulesset in the game. Especially at tournaments.

Karol wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
There are strange hills to choose to die on, of which defending and condoning cheaters is one, but layering that with wasp’s nest/genital-based false equivalence fallacies is amazing. Watching this guy dig that hole deeper and deepe is just super entertaining.

Fallacies or... phallicies?

Just harking back to the point about the apparently missing Codex - if the OP's opponent had lent his book to a friend, surely one of them shouldn't've been allowed to play in the event? Every tournament I've attended has mandated you have both the core rules for the game and all rules for your army with you, either in DTF or electronically. Is this something that has changed in the last couple of years?

I am sure the OP ment this => https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fallacy

Dysartes is making a pun on the word "phallus", which is another word for a ding dong.

I find it odd how everyone instantly thought <APPENDAGE> was related to genitals. Really says a lot about their state of mind.

And to reiterate, both people are at fault here. The cheater for cheating, and the cheated for not taking the bare minimum effort to not be cheated. It's embarrassing that so many people are getting upset about objective facts. Next you'll be telling me people get angry when you follow the rules and insist that re-rolls happen before modifiers or something.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I find it odd how everyone instantly thought <APPENDAGE> was related to genitals. Really says a lot about their state of mind.

It says that they're familiar with a common turn of phrase.

And to reiterate, both people are at fault here. The cheater for cheating, and the cheated for not taking the bare minimum effort to not be cheated. It's embarrassing that so many people are getting upset about objective facts. Next you'll be telling me people get angry when you follow the rules and insist that re-rolls happen before modifiers or something.

One person is at fault when cheating happens, the cheater. The cheated can only be admonished for not better protecting themselves from being cheated, but the cheater is the only one who has wronged someone. The cheated, at best, didn't do enough to prevent themselves from being wronged. They didn't cause the situation. They didn't do the bad thing. They just may not have stopped the bad thing from getting worse after the other person did the bad thing.

If I go to a rough neighborhood and get mugged, the mugger is at fault. I may be dumb for having gone there or not taken precautions, but the mugger is still the only one who deserves jail time.

 Jidmah wrote:

 IronBrand wrote:

Yes, lying about public information in mtg is a failure to maintain the game state. But when your opponent is getting ready to declare attacks you don't need to remind them that one of your creatures has deathtouch or that one of you untapped lands is a maze of ith.

You must tell him that your creature has deathtouch once it deals damage though. If your opponent asks if there is any obvious way to prevent damage from his attacker you must not lie about your Maze of Ith. Depending on your REL you can tell your opponent that you are not obligated to tell him derived information, but you cannot lie to him.

According to the OP: "I asked him if I controlled an objective, he said yes." His opponent clearly lied to a question with an answer that was public knowledge and would be punished for such in MtG.

You can't lie about having a Maze of Ith, but you can absolutely decline to answer a question like "Is there an on-board way to prevent damage" - you could respond to that question by saying "I only control these lands" and be fine, as long as the Maze isn't literally hidden from view in a stack on lands. But if the opponent asks "Do you control a Maze of Ith", you are obliged to answer "Yes".

Similarly, the exact question asked in this example matters. Here are four possible questions and responses:

"Is my guy within 3 inches?" "Yes" - absolutely fine, no obligation to mention the fire warrior.

"My guy's good for that objective, right?" "Yes" - Borderline, as the question is vague. It could mean "Is he in range?" or "Does he control it?" I personally would seek clarification, but I would not consider it cheating for the opponent to take the broader interpretation. After all, the guy could be checking if he's in range to confirm whether or not it's worth devoting resources to killing the fire warrior.

"My guy's good for that objective, right?" "He is within 3 inches" - Also fine, responding to an unclear question with an answer that is free knowledge.

"Does my guy control the objective?" "Yes" - Absolutely unacceptable. This would be an outright lie.

Now tell me - we have two conflicting accounts. Are you 100% sure you know what actually happened at that table? What the exact wording of the question and the response were?

Because I suspect the actual situation was a touch more nuanced and that neither account is exactly right. Of course, if things did go down exactly as described in the OP, then yes, that is cheating. But I've learned in my years as an MTG judge never to take a single account as gospel.

The upshot of this is that tournaments need to be run with well-defined rules, which are easily available, and competent and knowledgeable judging staff. What exactly that means depends on the event size.

In more recent rules you are even required to tell your opponent about optional triggers that he has no reason to miss, like "you may gain 1 life" when there is no drawback to it.

This is not true. In MTG, you are under no obligation to inform your opponent of triggers they control.

The bitterness of these posts has been really entertaining. It's like watching day time 40k tv.

Medicinal Carrots wrote:
If I go to a rough neighborhood and get mugged, the mugger is at fault. I may be dumb for having gone there or not taken precautions, but the mugger is still the only one who deserves jail time.

And this is where we fundamentally disagree. Yes, the mugger is the only one who deserves jail time, but he isn't the only one to blame. Call me old fashioned, but I am of the opinion that if you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes. When you go to a 40k tournament, it should be assumed that everyone will be WAAC, up to and including "cheating" or "unsportsmanlike" play.

tneva82 wrote:

 IronBrand wrote:

WH40k TOs (including GW) could learn a lot from the DCI. But history has shown that humanity usually doesn't learn from mistakes of the past

Yes, lying about public information in mtg is a failure to maintain the game state. But when your opponent is getting ready to declare attacks you don't need to remind them that one of your creatures has deathtouch or that one of you untapped lands is a maze of ith. If the cards aren't physically blocked by other cards then you're not failing to maintain the game state or hiding anything. In the theoretical case of a firewarrior behind a wall controlling an objective it's your opponent's responsibility to remember he's there. You don't have to acknowledge its existence unless your opponent asks. The same as how you don't have to remind your opponent that they have a unit in reserve still during their turn 3. Also if your opponent asks if their unit is in range to shoot one of your units you only have to say yes or no, not "yes but you'd need a 6 to hit and a 6 to wound, you should probably shoot this other unit instead". The important thing of course is the wording of any question your opponent asks. In a friendly game it's good sportsmanship to give them reminder about something here or there but in a tournament you have no obligation to help your opponent with their tactics.

This is bad for getting games in time since it will require players to circle table over often though to ensure no hidden models...well guess if the tau player wants game end turn or two sooner due to time

The difference is that I can see the entire game state from my seat in a game of magic. I might not be able to see an entire card if it's partially covered (is that a thing in Magic?), but I should always be able to see the card title and from that know what it does. However in a miniatures game, miniatures can be easily hidden from one side of the table. In games at my club, that's easy to resolve - I walk round and look. In a large tornament, where the tables are laid out in rows? I may have to walk dozens of metres just to get to the other side of the table, which is unfeasible, especially in a timed game. I would, and I would expect my opponent to, point out such easily-missed models when required.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
When you go to a 40k tournament, it should be assumed that everyone will be WAAC, up to and including "cheating" or "unsportsmanlike" play.

In that case, I would say that 40k tournaments are a toxic influence on the hobby as a whole and should be discouraged.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
In that case, I would say that 40k tournaments are a toxic influence on the hobby as a whole and should be discouraged.

Welcome to the 99% opinion. "Organised" 40k play has been toxic and hateful for decades and it's not going to stop any time soon.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
In that case, I would say that 40k tournaments are a toxic influence on the hobby as a whole and should be discouraged.

Welcome to the 99% opinion. "Organised" 40k play has been toxic and hateful for decades and it's not going to stop any time soon.

It's certainly not going to change if everyone has your mindset.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 IronBrand wrote:

WH40k TOs (including GW) could learn a lot from the DCI. But history has shown that humanity usually doesn't learn from mistakes of the past

Yes, lying about public information in mtg is a failure to maintain the game state. But when your opponent is getting ready to declare attacks you don't need to remind them that one of your creatures has deathtouch or that one of you untapped lands is a maze of ith. If the cards aren't physically blocked by other cards then you're not failing to maintain the game state or hiding anything. In the theoretical case of a firewarrior behind a wall controlling an objective it's your opponent's responsibility to remember he's there. You don't have to acknowledge its existence unless your opponent asks. The same as how you don't have to remind your opponent that they have a unit in reserve still during their turn 3. Also if your opponent asks if their unit is in range to shoot one of your units you only have to say yes or no, not "yes but you'd need a 6 to hit and a 6 to wound, you should probably shoot this other unit instead". The important thing of course is the wording of any question your opponent asks. In a friendly game it's good sportsmanship to give them reminder about something here or there but in a tournament you have no obligation to help your opponent with their tactics.

This is bad for getting games in time since it will require players to circle table over often though to ensure no hidden models...well guess if the tau player wants game end turn or two sooner due to time

The difference is that I can see the entire game state from my seat in a game of magic. I might not be able to see an entire card if it's partially covered (is that a thing in Magic?), but I should always be able to see the card title and from that know what it does. However in a miniatures game, miniatures can be easily hidden from one side of the table. In games at my club, that's easy to resolve - I walk round and look. In a large tornament, where the tables are laid out in rows? I may have to walk dozens of metres just to get to the other side of the table, which is unfeasible, especially in a timed game. I would, and I would expect my opponent to, point out such easily-missed models when required.

In magic, it's common practice to place your graveyard or your exile as single stack (some people even put their exile face-down to distinguish it from their graveyard), so certain cards that are public information are in places where you cannot see them from your seat. Your opponent is still obligated to tell you what and how many cards are in those stacks.

But I agree with your assessment, especially under the premise that most tournament setups don't support circling around the table without effort.

Feel free to hide models from other models, but models hidden from PLAYERS are not part of the game.

Pretty much the last two pages of this this thread have totally derailed onto the tangent sidetrack.

The whole point of the OP posting was to highlight to the wider 40k community this player’s unwholesome reputation, his shocking sportsmanship and his propensity to use dishonest tactics to win - aka cheating. Which myself and many others in the U.K. 40k community have witnesssd.

A lot of the more recent posts are focusing on the marginal internet ethics regarding possible witch hunts. The Mods have removed the personal information, so.. what’s the point?

As a side point, it should not, and in my experience is not, the case that you should assume that people are your ‘enemies’ at tournaments or you assume opponent is cheating you. Been a couple of years since I played at a decent level in 40k but aside from only two very poor exceptions (in more than 20+ tournaments of 5 games or over) that was not representative of the UK 40k competitive community. Very much the opposite.

Yeah but from the way it looks right now, someone calling out a cheater publiclly is branded as being at least just as bad as the cheater himself, regardless of the repution the cheater has. Some people from Poland, that went to grey foam GT in UK this year pointed out that it goes as far as people trying to correct rules durning game play or calling TOs if the opposing side keeps being stubborn, being viewed as being unfair, even by the TOs. Which imo is mind blowing.

UK is still better then some other countries. The spaniards don't care if someone cheated, specially if the cheater was spanish and the cheated was not. they just roll the next round and tell you it is tought luck.

A mass of victim blaming, 'x is as bad as y' and other 'enlightened centrist' though processes that try to paint a situation as too complex to properly understand. Probably the worst position taken here so far was that the cheaters were 'in the right' for cheating, because it makes the game more 'fun'. OP was the bad guy for daring to be mildly upset that he be treated in a way that many others would find abhorrent.