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.

w1zard wrote:

For what it's worth, I still don't think those videos proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he cheated intentionally.

Well, that's your error. Fortunately what you think is irrelevant, because you're not the TO or the judges. And they disagreed with you and I'm pretty sure they didn't get to where they are being blind.

w1zard wrote:
I also don't think you realize that in your eagerness to punish "cheaters" and deal with "loose play" harshly (which according to you is almost as bad as cheating), you are basically saying a good chunk of the 40k community at large should be banned for life from competitive play.

I do realize this. If they're caught, ban them. Ban them, and then as they make the walk of shame everyone should get to point and laugh at them. And when people defend them, point at them and laugh at them. Make them cry. Zero sympathy.

If you cheat to get prize money, you are attempting to steal.

w1zard wrote:
Like I've said in all of my previous posts. For maximum effectiveness in punishing cheaters, you have to CATCH ALL OF THEM and punish them moderately (DQ them, lifetime bans only in cases of repeated cheating). Show everyone that cheating in a 40k game WILL get you caught, and DQed.

This doesn't even make sense. "The only way this will work is if you catch 100% of the people doing something wrong, and then just give them a mild punishment". Right. No, sorry, that's completely absurd.

w1zard wrote:
No, I'm saying rules should be enforced, but when massive amounts of people are breaking them and your only response is is to catch a fraction of them and disproportionately punish them in a fruitless effort to stop others from doing it, that it is unjust.

Do you have any proof that 'everyone else is doing it', or are you just making things up? You've yet to make a point that didn't sound like something a kid would say. That's not how life works, that's not how anything works.

You catch the people you can catch. You don't let it slide because you assume (without evidence) that others were doing it.

w1zard wrote:
So you would be fine with life-banning a quarter to a third of the entire tournament attendees then?

If that many are cheating? YES!

(that's a pretty stupid question, BTW. Recall that Russia was banned from international competition recently)

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Who are all these people? Once again you ignore all but a single sentence in the entire post because you can't answer to stronger logic. So source me these people you keep referring to, if you haven't just made them up entirely. Because nobody has seen any of them yet. So I'm going to make my post about nothing other than this so you can't dodge it anymore if you choose to respond to me.

They're judges and TO's. Again, who the hell do you think calls this shot- the hobo out back? People he lost to? Do you think some random moron could just say, "He cheated!" and the entire tournament staff just said, "OK!"

So no sources that anyone beyond than the T.O. made this call, just pure projection? Got it.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
I don't think you're understanding how this works and you're really grasping at straws.

So someone who has done work as a judge before at a tournament, telling you to base your opinions on what you actually know and not just a bunch of projection, doesn't have an understanding of how rulings happen in a tournament setting, and is grasping at straws?

I'm literally only asking you to source your own statements. Which you cannot do. You literally said all his opponents were in agreement here that he cheats for example. This is a fraction of the claims you made. Source this one part for example and we can go from there, or admit you are lying.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Look, dude- I'll be 100% honest with you, I'm starting to think this argument is hitting a little too close to home with you. I'm not sure what you're seeing it, you really seem to be downplaying it and handwaving it off when the evidence, on freaking VIDEO, shows it. I'm curious as to what your local meta is like, and I'm pretty sure if this is considered 'okay' in your eyes then it's a toxic situation.

Your argument's 'logic':

"Who are judges, really? And people get falsely accused of cheating, everyone could have just up and conspired against this guy because he was too awesome.

This is like the 3 or 4th time I've seen you be so incapable of understanding why someone would want evidence before immediately crucify someone for suspicion of cheating, that you immediately land on projecting things, "are you this guy?" "just admit he's your buddy" "you're meta must be toxic", jesus dude just stop. I don't even live in the same country as him.

You keep saying "everyone conspired against this guy" as though it means more than literally two people we know of so far - the guy to write the post and some random on reddit who claims he heard this guy cheated from someone else.

I'm waiting for you to expand that list for me.

And then to explain how mob justice actually disproves or effects the video recording at all. We don't need to rely on hearsay - we can literally watch the entire video.




Go get your rocks off somewhere else. There's entire communities built over spectating people's suffering. Let this guy play his tabletop game and bite back the foam.

 SHUPPET wrote:
You've got to be pretty wrong for me and Peregrine to BOTH call you out on it.

Or maybe you're just so wrong that you even find yourself on the same side of an argument as Peregrine on this one.

w1zard wrote:
I also don't think you realize that in your eagerness to punish "cheaters" and deal with "loose play" harshly (which according to you is almost as bad as cheating), you are basically saying a good chunk of the 40k community at large should be banned for life from competitive play.

Alternatively, we understand that if it's really as bad as you claim then the 40k community is a toxic mess full of worthless TFGs who need to be banned for life. The solution is to ban them for life and have a better community with the remaining people, not to make excuses for cheaters and allow them to continue.

For maximum effectiveness in punishing cheaters, you have to CATCH ALL OF THEM and punish them moderately (DQ them, lifetime bans only in cases of repeated cheating). Show everyone that cheating in a 40k game WILL get you caught, and DQed.

Sure, but maximum effectiveness isn't required to have positive results. Even if punishment is not 100% guaranteed the risk of a lifetime ban and public shaming makes cheating a huge risk. Are you really going to cheat at a major event and risk that outcome, along with wasting $1000+ in travel costs, just because it's only a 25% chance of happening?

Giving a grossly disproportionate punishment

It's not grossly disproportionate. It's exactly correct. Cheat and say goodbye to your hobby.

It is also unjust to the "examples" who in the best case have been punished harshly for something a lot of people do on the regular, or in the worst case are totally innocent of intentional wrongdoing.

It is no such thing. Is it "unjust" to put someone in prison for murder just because someone else got away with murder because the police couldn't find enough evidence? Guilty is guilty, and "you didn't catch that other person" isn't an excuse.

And no, they aren't innocent. You don't accidentally bump a model just enough to make a subtle move without deliberate intent. You're either going to miss the model or bump it obviously enough that you immediately notice what happened even if your opponent didn't. And if the model is bumped forward and skewed around randomly on its base you're going to say "oops, my mistake" and agree with your opponent on where exactly to move it back to.

I wonder if the apologists realize that casinos legally ban people for life if they suspect them of card counting.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I wonder if the apologists realize that casinos legally ban people for life if they suspect them of card counting.

Or that card counting isn't even against the rules of the game, it just violates the casino's desire to have every game rigged in the house's favor and guaranteed profits in the long run.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Well, that's your error. Fortunately what you think is irrelevant, because you're not the TO or the judges. And they disagreed with you and I'm pretty sure they didn't get to where they are being blind.

Actually, what he thinks is not irrelevant. If he was speaking on whether or not he's going to ban him, he doesn't actually have this power and this is where he would be irrelevant, and the T.O. wouldn't be. However he, along with everyone in this thread including yourself, isn't doing this, and is instead speaking on whether or not they personally think the evidence proves him as guilty, and his opinion is at the very least, equally as relevant as your own.

You think the error was in his anaylsis, seems like w1zard believes the error in was yours. Just saying "nah actually it was yours" doesn't change a thing. Mentioning that the judges agree with you doesn't change anything either, as they are the people he is initially disagreeing with. There is numerous things that could have caused this ruling, and you just file anything other reasoning than "because he's guilty!" under C for Conspiracy, and spend more time trying to discredit people's right to even have a differeing opinion here, than actually formulating a sensible argument yourself.



I too watched the video, he didn't look guilty to me. So your response to this has consistently been to either a.) point at other people who disagree, most of whom you've made up and cannot source, or b.) to try to discredit peoples opinions, going as far as accusing them of being in leagues with this guy or in my case actually BEING this guy, because you genuinely cannot comprehend another reason why someone might not see a model bump with a glass as indisputably condemning evidence towards someone's guilt.



It shouldn't be this difficult. Even the guy who made the ruling had more doubts than you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I wonder if the apologists realize that casinos legally ban people for life if they suspect them of card counting.

Or that card counting isn't even against the rules of the game, it just violates the casino's desire to have every game rigged in the house's favor and guaranteed profits in the long run.

.... doesn't this just analogy just support the argument that people get heavy handed lifetimes bans not just for breaking rules, but sometimes for reasons stemming from the host, and the fact that they made the decision to ban him doesn't actually support the fact that he's a cheater, as you guys keep saying?





T.O. can ban whoever he wants from his own event for whatever reason he wants. I don't think anyone is arguing that he doesn't legally have this power. However, when presented with the same evidence we're all just as capable of forming an opinion on whether or not this guy was guilty of cheating.

 SHUPPET wrote:
.... doesn't this just analogy just support the argument that people get heavy handed lifetimes bans not just for breaking rules, but sometimes for reasons stemming from the host, and that his ban doesn't automatically make him a cheater?

No, because nobody is arguing that the ban makes him a cheater. He's a cheater because he's caught on video cheating. I don't know how anyone can possibly watch that water glass bump and think it wasn't deliberate. He takes the glass from its spot on empty table, "accidentally" waves it around a packed area of the table and nudges his tank with it, and then immediately takes it away instead of setting it down there.

 Peregrine wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
.... doesn't this just analogy just support the argument that people get heavy handed lifetimes bans not just for breaking rules, but sometimes for reasons stemming from the host, and that his ban doesn't automatically make him a cheater?

No, because nobody is arguing that the ban makes him a cheater.

So when I said he might not be guilty just because people say he is and that theres a few reasons people might say it, and you then responded, and I quote:

"then why are people like me, who have never played against the guy or even heard of him before this cheating incident, supporting a ban? Why hasn't the second-place player, who beat a similar number of people in the process of getting to the top table, received the same jealousy and excuses in the form of cheating accusations and calls for a ban? Why has this one player, out of all of the competitive players and all of the games they have won, been singled out like this?"

Was this not you arguing that the fact that he's been put forth for a ban supports him being a cheater, because he wouldn't be singled out if he was innocent? What was the point of saying this if not?








Or how bout when w1zard said that he didn't feel that what he saw on the videos prove his guilt, and Doritos responded with, and I quote:

"what you think is irrelevant, because you're not the TO or the judges. And they disagreed with you and I'm pretty sure they didn't get to where they are being blind."

Or when he said:

"This was done by judges and the TO. The people hosting it. And I highly doubt they got together and said, "You know what? That guy's too good. Let's lie about him and screw him over at the last game. Because mustache-twirling reasons!""


Is this not him arguing that look, these judges have made the decision, therefor, it's more evidence that he cheats, because they wouldn't do it if he was innocent?






Please do try to talk your way out of this one, it will be funny to see how far you can backpedal this.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

This doesn't even make sense. "The only way this will work is if you catch 100% of the people doing something wrong, and then just give them a mild punishment". Right. No, sorry, that's completely absurd.

Moderate punishment, not mild.

Scholarly Link - https://nij.gov/five-things/pages/deterrence.aspx

As I've said, I've done research in this area. You should give it a look, it may change your opinion on things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

It is no such thing. Is it "unjust" to put someone in prison for murder just because someone else got away with murder because the police couldn't find enough evidence? Guilty is guilty, and "you didn't catch that other person" isn't an excuse.

No, but it is unjust for someone to be punished for being a murderer, when 20-30% of the population are also murderers and don't get punished for it, you just happened to be unlucky enough to get caught publicly.

 SHUPPET wrote:
So when I said he might not be guilty just because people say he is and that theres a few reasons people might say it, and you then responded, and I quote:

"then why are people like me, who have never played against the guy or even heard of him before this cheating incident, supporting a ban? Why hasn't the second-place player, who beat a similar number of people in the process of getting to the top table, received the same jealousy and excuses in the form of cheating accusations and calls for a ban? Why has this one player, out of all of the competitive players and all of the games they have won, been singled out like this?"

Was this not you arguing that the fact that he's been put forth for a ban supports him being a cheater, because he wouldn't be singled out if he was innocent? What was the point of saying this if not?

Well that's certainly a dishonest attempt to take things out of context. You quoted me addressing the question of why people would support a ban, and providing reasons other than "they're just jealous losers". Nothing in there says that he's guilty because of the ban, the statement about him being singled out is made in the context of assuming that your point about jealousy is true. We assume that your theory is true, and it leads to a conclusion that doesn't match what we see. Therefore it probably isn't true.

As for the other people, there's a huge difference between "the ban proves he cheated" and "the people with the most information about the subject concluded that it was cheating, I'm going to trust them more than I trust you and your lack of direct experience."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

w1zard wrote:
No, but it is unjust for someone to be punished for being a murderer, when 20-30% of the population are also murderers and don't get punished for it.

No it isn't. Murders should always be punished. The failure to catch and convict other murders does not mean that we should decline to punish someone who does get caught and convicted.

 Peregrine wrote:

No it isn't. Murders should always be punished. The failure to catch and convict other murders does not mean that we should decline to punish someone who does get caught and convicted.

Not saying we should decline to punish them, I'm saying that the situation is unjust. I'm not sure how you can argue otherwise.

I'm sure if I murdered someone and 20-30% of the population are also murderers, I'd be pretty mad that I was in jail while they were free. I'd either want to be outside with them, or want them to be inside with me.

w1zard wrote:
Not saying we should decline to punish them, I'm saying that the situation is unjust. I'm not sure how you can argue otherwise.

I'm sure if I murdered someone and 20-30% of the population are also murderers, I'd be pretty mad that I was in jail while they were free. I'd either want to be outside with them, or want them to be inside with me.

Then we agree on the resolution: lifetime bans for all cheaters, and work to catch all cheaters.

 Peregrine wrote:


Well that's certainly a dishonest attempt to take things out of context. You quoted me addressing the question of why people would support a ban, and providing reasons other than "they're just jealous losers".

What? I was the explaining why people might accuse someone of cheating even if they were innnocent. I was the one providing further reasons and possibilities, in DIRECT RESPONSE to you stating that "comments from his locals of him cheating puts this video in a different light", and I outright said that there is multiple possibilities why someone would say this, that these statements are unverified many things are possible, and we can't take stuff like this into account. You then doubled down on your opinion that THERE-IS-ONLY-ONE-POSSIBILITY-AND-THATS-CHEATING, with your response to me about how the TO's singling this guy out means I'm wrong in saying this.

I really don't think I took your words out of context. If I did I apologise, because I hate when people rely on doing that, but I genuinely thought this is what your argument here was - that the fact that he was put forth and not anyone else, is more evidence that he's guilty, and that this counters that the possibility of it being one of the reasons like salt that I put forth. But I'm quite sure you are just backpedaling right now.

As for the other people, there's a huge difference between "the ban proves he cheated" and "the people with the most information about the subject concluded that it was cheating, I'm going to trust them more than I trust you and your lack of direct experience."

Not when you are using that second statement to argue that the first is true, which is exactly what I', pretty sure you were doing, and if not Dorito's was unmistakeably doing.

 Peregrine wrote:

Then we agree on the resolution: lifetime bans for all cheaters, and work to catch all cheaters.

If you want to go that route sure, but I think it is unnecessary. Either:

1. You have an effective way to catch cheaters, in which case a draconian punishment is unnecessary because certainty of being caught offers so much more deterrence relative to the deterrence gained by harsh punishment. (source- https://nij.gov/five-things/pages/deterrence.aspx).

2. You do not have an effective way to catch cheaters, in which case a draconian punishment is unjust for the reasons I have been espousing over the last two pages, and does little to add to deterrence.

Either way, lifetime bans for minor transgressions (intentional or not) are entirely counterproductive to achieving deterrence to cheating. And I do think nudging a model slightly is a minor transgression, and I'm still unconvinced that Mr. Harrison did so intentionally.

The only reason you could have for wanting lifetime bans for minor cheating, or "loose" play is that you believe that being dishonest in a game of plastic soldiers is such a heinous crime that anyone who does so deserves to be stigmatized for life.

 SHUPPET wrote:
I really don't think I took your words out of context. If I did I apologise, because I hate when people rely on doing that, but I genuinely thought this is what your argument here was - that the fact that he was put forth and not anyone else, is more evidence that he's guilty, and that this counters that the possibility of it being one of the reasons like salt that I put forth.

You are wrong. The fact that no other successful competitive players were targeted is evidence against your theory that this is all about jealousy towards competitive players and refusal to accept an honest defeat. If you assume that this is the only other (or at least primary other) theory to consider then, by process of elimination, it is evidence that the people arguing for the ban (including the TO who imposed it) are doing so out of genuine belief that he cheated and should be punished for it and would not call for a similar ban against other players who beat them. It is not evidence that he actually did cheat, it's possible that the people calling for a ban out of genuine belief that he cheated are wrong about the events (and would, presumably, drop their calls for a ban if he was proved to be innocent).

The actual evidence that he is cheating and the people who believe he cheated are correct in their beliefs is the video where he blatantly cheats on camera.

He was caught cheating, ergo he was banned. It's not rocket science.
The video EVIDENCE ( In bold for the frog ) was enough for the judges and thats who matter, not some armchair critic.
I don't know how some people were brought up but right and wrong were pretty important in my upbringing, now a days not so much if people think cheating ( even if he didn't win ) is OK.

Jesus, this thread has some incredible arguments.

Simple fact is, the guy is a past LVO winner not some casual gamer; he knew what he was doing and did so in a manner that could always be passed off as "accidental"..... thats kinda part of trying to not get caught guys.

The arguement of "well everyone is doing it" is completely irrelevant, i bet you weren't coming to lance Armstrong's aid on that one.

And to those saying the punishment is too much etc?/ Seriously..... he can still play toy soldiers at home or at other tournaments, why should the organiser give this guy a place at future events over another player? the TO doesn't owe this guy anything.

w1zard wrote:
1. You have an effective way to catch cheaters, in which case a draconian punishment is unnecessary because certainty of being caught offers so much more deterrence relative to the deterrence gained by harsh punishment.

Strongly disagree. I don't want cheaters in my community, regardless of any deterrent effect. A lifetime ban accomplishes the goal of removing a cheater from the community and therefore should be done even if it has zero deterrent value.

2. You do not have an effective way to catch cheaters, in which case a draconian punishment is unjust for the reasons I have been espousing over the last two pages, and does little to add to deterrence.

And, again, frequently lacking enough evidence to get a conviction does not mean that we should let people off easy when we do have the evidence. The only question is guilt or innocence, and the cheater in question is clearly guilty.

And I do think nudging a model slightly is a minor transgression, and I'm still unconvinced that Mr. Harrison did so intentionally.

Then we'll just have to disagree on this. Cheating is cheating, period. There is nothing minor about deliberate cheating. And there is zero credible argument that it was an accident. Just watch the video, it's as obviously deliberate as you can get, short of him announcing "I AM CHEATING NOW".

The only reason you could have for wanting lifetime bans for cheating is that you believe that being dishonest in a game of plastic soldiers is such a heinous crime that anyone who does so deserves to be stigmatized for life.

That's certainly blowing it way out of proportion. Losing the ability to play a single game is hardly "stigmatized for life". There are billions of people currently demonstrating that one can have an adequate life without playing 40k. Losing the ability to play 40k is nowhere near a life-wrecking event that requires us to accept a cheater to spare them a life of suffering. They can just get over the fact that they cheated and are no longer welcome, and find something else to do with their time (at least until they cheat again and get kicked out).

Process wrote:
The arguement of "well everyone is doing it" is completely irrelevant, i bet you weren't coming to lance Armstrong's aid on that one.

My point on this issue was to argue that everyone plays a little loose occasionally. I've nudged models with a drink, I've forgotten to discard cards, I've accidentally picked up wound counters before. I've done everything that Mr. Harrison has done in that video on accident before, so I know it is possible. Nobody banned me for life, or publicly humiliated me for it though. Again, I'm not entirely convinced that Mr. Harrisons actions were intentional.

Process wrote:
And to those saying the punishment is too much etc?/ Seriously..... he can still play toy soldiers at home or at other tournaments, why should the organiser give this guy a place at future events over another player? the TO doesn't owe this guy anything.

I think the punishment was too severe with the caveat that we don't know for sure that he was actually intentionally cheating or not. If he was intentionally cheating then it MIGHT be justified (not even IRL athletes get lifetime bans for first time cheating), but if he wasn't then getting lifetime banned for making a couple of simple mistakes is absolutely too harsh.

 Peregrine wrote:
Strongly disagree. I don't want cheaters in my community, regardless of any deterrent effect. A lifetime ban accomplishes the goal of removing a cheater from the community and therefore should be done even if it has zero deterrent value.

If you don't want to be associated with people who have ever cheated at something or bent the rules in their entire lives, you are going to be very lonely. It doesn't make cheating ok, but it is something to consider.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
That's certainly blowing it way out of proportion. Losing the ability to play a single game is hardly "stigmatized for life". There are billions of people currently demonstrating that one can have an adequate life without playing 40k. Losing the ability to play 40k is nowhere near a life-wrecking event that requires us to accept a cheater to spare them a life of suffering. They can just get over the fact that they cheated and are no longer welcome, and find something else to do with their time (at least until they cheat again and get kicked out).

This is being disingenuous. Getting publicly ridiculed on social media can be a pretty life wrecking event, especially in a community as large as 40k.

w1zard wrote:
Again, I'm not entirely convinced that Mr. Harrisons actions were intentional.

Then watch the video. He picks up the glass of water, off a clear space on the table, holds it near a group of models in a way that wouldn't be the natural resting position for your arm, moves it precisely the right way to nudge a model forward without obviously skewing it or moving it so far that the other player notices, and then immediately pulls the glass back into clear space. Either the whole thing was an act of cheating, deliberately planned from beginning to end, or he bumped the model with his glass, was aware that he hit models (since he pulled it back so quickly), and cheated by not informing his opponent and agreeing on where to move the models back to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

w1zard wrote:
This is being disingenuous. Getting publicly ridiculed on social media can be a pretty life wrecking event, especially in a community as large as 40k.

Then don't cheat if you're so sensitive that you won't be able to get over it even years later.

 Peregrine wrote:

Then watch the video. He picks up the glass of water, off a clear space on the table, holds it near a group of models in a way that wouldn't be the natural resting position for your arm, moves it precisely the right way to nudge a model forward without obviously skewing it or moving it so far that the other player notices, and then immediately pulls the glass back into clear space. Either the whole thing was an act of cheating, deliberately planned from beginning to end, or he bumped the model with his glass, was aware that he hit models (since he pulled it back so quickly), and cheated by not informing his opponent and agreeing on where to move the models back to.

I have watched it, multiple times. It very well could be intentional. But as I've said I've accidentally moved models like this before and not noticed, this is not 100% conclusive evidence of intentional cheating.

EDIT: Re-watched it again, his opponent was staring right at the model as he nudged it, didn't say anything. How is he 100% cheating again? I still stand by my statement that it is possible that it was entirely unintentional and unnoticed (you can't see where his head is pointing so you don't know if he was distracted by something else).

w1zard wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Then watch the video. He picks up the glass of water, off a clear space on the table, holds it near a group of models in a way that wouldn't be the natural resting position for your arm, moves it precisely the right way to nudge a model forward without obviously skewing it or moving it so far that the other player notices, and then immediately pulls the glass back into clear space. Either the whole thing was an act of cheating, deliberately planned from beginning to end, or he bumped the model with his glass, was aware that he hit models (since he pulled it back so quickly), and cheated by not informing his opponent and agreeing on where to move the models back to.

Unless even 5% of the population drinks their water like that I don't think there's much to defend. I'm all for benefit of the doubt myself. There is no doubt here though.
I have watched it, multiple times. It very well could be intentional. But as I've said I've accidentally moved models like this before and not noticed, this is not 100% conclusive evidence of intentional cheating.

w1zard wrote:
I have watched it, multiple times. It very well could be intentional. But as I've said I've accidentally moved models like this before and not noticed, this is not 100% conclusive evidence of intentional cheating.

But he obviously does notice. He quickly pulls the glass back, away from the models, after the bump. The only question is whether he noticed and pulled it back because he was trying to hide the bump, or noticed it and didn't say anything.

 Peregrine wrote:

But he obviously does notice. He quickly pulls the glass back, away from the models, after the bump. The only question is whether he noticed and pulled it back because he was trying to hide the bump, or noticed it and didn't say anything.

It is possible he thought he tapped it with the water glass and didn't move it, it was less than an inch from where it was before. If I were playing and tapped a model with my water glass and honestly thought I didn't move it at all, I wouldn't even mention it to my opponent because it's a non-issue. Also, his opponent was staring at it the entire time, if he had a problem he should have said something.

Most people naturally want to give benefit of doubt. I know I do. Its even more of a pressure when you have a pseudo celebrity status like a former LVO winner. At the very least if a model is bumped you would expect an apology and a move to re-position the model but this didn't happen.

For me the change to the wound counter is more of an issue. Tournaments are full of bad sportsmanship, intimidation, rules mishaps and slow playing. These need to be rectified and some of these issues are not even against the rules but I can only support a TO for acting when video evidence is present. A warning should only be issued when there is no evidence.

 Nithaniel wrote:
Most people naturally want to give benefit of doubt. I know I do. Its even more of a pressure when you have a pseudo celebrity status like a former LVO winner. At the very least if a model is bumped you would expect an apology and a move to re-position the model but this didn't happen.

For me the change to the wound counter is more of an issue. Tournaments are full of bad sportsmanship, intimidation, rules mishaps and slow playing. These need to be rectified and some of these issues are not even against the rules but I can only support a TO for acting when video evidence is present. A warning should only be issued when there is no evidence.

Just to be clear, I have exactly 0 horses in this race. I don't follow the tournament scene at all, I'm actually a casual 40k player. I just take umbrage with the fact that a lot of people seem to see "obvious" cheating in this video when all I see is a nudged model, a mismeasured distance... stupid stuff. Stuff that I'VE done before on accident. Stuff that happens at every table in 40k.

Even if he came out right now and admitted he cheated intentionally, you could STILL make the argument that a lifetime ban is too harsh a punishment when almost all IRL sports don't even lifetime ban on a first cheating offense. And apart from vague, unverified, rumors about a shady reputation for questionable playing, as far as I'm concerned this is a first offense.

 Nithaniel wrote:
At the very least if a model is bumped you would expect an apology and a move to re-position the model but this didn't happen.

Exactly. I play a lot of X-Wing and stuff gets bumped all the time. And it's expected that you mention that you bumped it, make any necessary adjustments, and confirm with your opponent that both of you are happy on the model's position. At absolute minimum in cases where there's unlikely to be any dispute over it, such as bumping a model off in the corner in empty space, you need to adjust the model back to where it should be. You never bump a model and just ignore it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

w1zard wrote:
Even if he came out right now and admitted he cheated intentionally, you could STILL make the argument that a lifetime ban is too harsh a punishment when almost all IRL sports don't even lifetime ban on a first cheating offense.

And IMO this leniency is a mistake, driven entirely by profit needs (can't sell $$$$$$$$ gear with a banned player's number). A player who has demonstrated willingness to cheat is a who does not belong in our community. Their presence adds nothing of value, and everyone they play against would always have to be carefully watching them, knowing that they are willing to cheat if they think they can get away with it. Kick them out and be done with it.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I wonder if the apologists realize that casinos legally ban people for life if they suspect them of card counting.

They don't ban them for life say flipping cards open accidentally mid-round of poker game.

It's different thing banning for life for deliberate cheating and mistakes that happen. There's plenty of videos from london GT showing others doing same things. Those things HAPPEN! Nobody plays perfectly. If you ban everybody who makes mistake you ban everybody. Good! No more tournaments as everybody is banned for life.

That video shows things that can be cheating but also can be just mistake. Cheating requires intentionality. And now we have people claiming he cheats extra marker hit which benefits him in no way whatsoever(shoot seeker missile at full BS. Yey. Good when you have 0 seeker missiles). If anybody really claims that was cheating then he's a fool(and that is putting it with polite spin)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

w1zard wrote:

 Nithaniel wrote:
Most people naturally want to give benefit of doubt. I know I do. Its even more of a pressure when you have a pseudo celebrity status like a former LVO winner. At the very least if a model is bumped you would expect an apology and a move to re-position the model but this didn't happen.

For me the change to the wound counter is more of an issue. Tournaments are full of bad sportsmanship, intimidation, rules mishaps and slow playing. These need to be rectified and some of these issues are not even against the rules but I can only support a TO for acting when video evidence is present. A warning should only be issued when there is no evidence.

Just to be clear, I have exactly 0 horses in this race. I don't follow the tournament scene at all, I'm actually a casual 40k player. I just take umbrage with the fact that a lot of people seem to see "obvious" cheating in this video when all I see is a nudged model, a mismeasured distance... stupid stuff. Stuff that I'VE done before on accident. Stuff that happens at every table in 40k.

Even if he came out right now and admitted he cheated intentionally, you could STILL make the argument that a lifetime ban is too harsh a punishment when almost all IRL sports don't even lifetime ban on a first cheating offense. And apart from vague, unverified, rumors about a shady reputation for questionable playing, as far as I'm concerned this is a first offense.

2 days ago I hit corner of table by accident trying to move around quickly(I play horde army. I can't play slow if I want to play even close to full game. Especially with 2h time limit). This rocked off several models off exact positions. So thus I'm supposedly massive cheater and deserve life time ban.

Well again good. This attitude and we can be rid of tournaments as no player will be without lifetime ban within a year

I've watched the video a few times and and in regards to the water bumping the hammerhead I couldn't conclusively say either way. It looks bad, but on a crowded table and not wanting to take my eyes off what my opponent was doing it's the type of clumsy thing I'd do. Personally I'd have mentioned it if there was contact, but with a plastic cup it may not make an audible noise and the movement may not have been noticed by either player.