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.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Reece gave a clear and reasonable explanation why no one would be subject to sactions for past behavior under a new system that hasn’t even been completed or implemented.

Is it reasonable to punish people under rules that did not exist when the infraction occurred? Most people would say no.

What people have you been hanging with?

So your telling me the worlds first murderer should have walked free on the technicality that laws weren't in existence, and your justification would be ethics? Which ethics? Is it more ethical to allow certain people extra chances despite new rules being required because of their behavior? Extra chances after they have already negatively impacted other innocent gamers?

I guess it was unethical to lock up the worlds first murderer because there was no rule about not doing that. I mean, we want to protect folks, but we also don't want to be unfair and catch him off guard with some new rule right? Or how about the worlds first bank robber? Wasn't he just gaming the system so it worked for him until some spoil sport had to create a new rule about that? Some people in here have a really crappy sense of ethics lol. What sick sense of justice concerns itself with the guilty over the protection of the innocent?

Lets be clear here, we aren't talking about new rules added to a games mechanics. We are talking about those pesky golden rules grandma always hounded you over. You know the unwritten social fabric, respect and common decency. How the feth is it moving the post to expect basic manners from guests at an event? So we are rules lawyering etiquette now? Willfully misleading an opponent to take advantage of them, to lie, break trust. This is what occurred, and while I appreciate there not being one governing arm that has the authority to ban certain bad apples, there is a massive little thing known as leading be example. "Hey guys, we can't tell you how to run your events, but these guys are not going to be allowed at any event we run because they demonstrated they cannot be trusted, balls in your court." Not we think everyone should get a clean slate going forward as it's somehow ethical.

I guess whats done is done though, I'd suggest anyone at an event that recognizes said actors should warn any and all their opponents and make sure a judge is handy because they certainly wouldn't have my trust, and frankly I'd be more then a bit pissed off after paying thousands to attend an event only to draw a known cheater.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
It's reasonable to punish people for bad behavior. If there's a new framework, and they haven't yet been punished, then apply that new framework. Or simply drop the hammer. That works, too.

Said far more concisely then myself,

wait... did you actually just equate shooting a Phantom Plasma pistol in a table top game with Murder ?!

I was using an extreme example intentionally to point how flawed the response was.

I am pointing out the pink elephant in the room and your hung up on it being pink...

Are you trying to avoid my point by getting hung up on semantics now?

But the point is valid. Equating cheating at a game, pushing the boundaries of sportsmanship, and not clearing some proxy models with murder is ridiculous. There is a difference between being a jerk and being a murderer.

For jerks, it is perfectly reasonable to put them, with the rest of the community, on notice that these are the new rules for conduct and there will be repercussions for violating them.

No need to drop some random BanHammer on them because some people have decided they are jerks. Either they are boundary pushers who will shape up, or they are irredeemable jerks who won't be able to help themselves and will be quickly sorted out by the new rules.

I can see a case for a ban since they have repeatedly cheated at more than one event in a relatively short period of time. A ban would send a message to all potential cheaters - this type of behavior won’t be let off the hook any longer.

The ends justify the means. There's no virtue in playing by the rules when dealing with people who don't play by the rules.

 Red Corsair wrote:
I was using an extreme example intentionally to point how flawed the response was.

Using a fallacy to point out a fallacy ... *sigh* That's not how arguments and debate work. <------ someone will point out, "But that's how the internet works, man."

 Red Corsair wrote:
I am pointing out the pink elephant in the room and your hung up on it being pink...

Are you trying to avoid my point by getting hung up on semantics now?

That wasn't semantics, that was equating the crime of homicide with cheating at 40k.

Instead, just apply and argue the mechanics of the 'grand father' clause, because that's where this discussion is presently at. What's good about a 'grandfather' clause and what's bad about it? Applied to the case of notorious, cheating, or WAAC douches, in 40k ?

 Red Corsair wrote:
I was using an extreme example intentionally to point how flawed the response was.

I am pointing out the pink elephant in the room and your hung up on it being pink...

Are you trying to avoid my point by getting hung up on semantics now?

lol...says the guy trying to create a Storm in a teacup.

 alextroy wrote:
No need to drop some random BanHammer on them because some people have decided they are jerks.

It is not a case of "some people have decided they are jerks". It's a case of clear, documented cheating. And if a player has demonstrated that they are willing to cheat why should they be allowed to continue playing? The "but we didn't threaten them with banning yet so we can't ban them" excuse is pathetic. There is no need to give a warning, ban them and be done with it.

 Peregrine wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
No need to drop some random BanHammer on them because some people have decided they are jerks.

It is not a case of "some people have decided they are jerks". It's a case of clear, documented cheating. And if a player has demonstrated that they are willing to cheat why should they be allowed to continue playing? The "but we didn't threaten them with banning yet so we can't ban them" excuse is pathetic. There is no need to give a warning, ban them and be done with it.

Yep, otherwise it sets a bad precedent and others will simply cheat with the knowledge that if caught they will only get a slap on the wrist.

 alextroy wrote:
For jerks, it is perfectly reasonable to put them, with the rest of the community, on notice that these are the new rules for conduct and there will be repercussions for violating them.

No need to drop some random BanHammer on them because some people have decided they are jerks. Either they are boundary pushers who will shape up, or they are irredeemable jerks who won't be able to help themselves and will be quickly sorted out by the new rules.

So essentially, giving them one more chance and taking the risk that they'll wreck one more event vs the chance that they'll start playing fair? I can see that, but who would want to risk their event being the one that gets dragged through the mud?

 zedsdead wrote:
wait... did you actually just equate shooting a Phantom Plasma pistol in a table top game with Murder ?!

The US operates off the principle of "do it till it's illegal" and look at us right now.

At the minimum I'd say they should be down a fair number of strikes and if it comes down to more accusations of cheating that are easily verified they're just booted and banned.

Less reasonably I'd say give them a Judge who rides them around with a saddle verifying their lists and actions and see how they perform under the actual rules.

In theory most of these rules have been there for a long time, it's just that these guys have gotten used to bending or breaking them as they see fit. Something has to be done to make it perfectly clear to them that they need to stop with that.

Anyone who chooses to take their money when they signup for the event. Individual organizers are free to take action independent of any collective action.

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:
give them a Judge who rides them around with a saddle verifying their lists and actions and see how they perform under the actual rules.

If a TO have to dedicate a Judge to babysitting a group of known cheaters to ensure that they don't cheat (again), that's kind of a big problem right there. Beyond the mechanical business of checking the list, I need a Judge who's familiar with all of their armies and the interactions within. That's a lot of work, and a PITA to manage. Best case, they don't cheat because there's a Judge right there, and I waste someone's valuable time for the entire event. Worst case, they pull a fast one on the Judge, and everyone is up in arms again.

It'd be much, much easier to disinvite them and bar them from entering.

Hence, the attraction of permabanning them from all such events.

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:
Something has to be done to make it perfectly clear to them that they need to stop with that.

Permanently banning them from playing anything outside of a local 5-person store "tournament" accomplishes this goal very nicely. They can either stop cheating and take what few gaming opportunities are still available to them, or continue to cheat and find themselves banned from ever playing again. And the example will make it perfectly clear to other potential cheaters that getting caught cheating (and you will get caught eventually) means permanent removal from the game you supposedly enjoy.

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:

 zedsdead wrote:
wait... did you actually just equate shooting a Phantom Plasma pistol in a table top game with Murder ?!

The US operates off the principle of "do it till it's illegal" and look at us right now.

The New England Patriots have won several Championships under this method.

Red Corsair wrote:*snip*
So your telling me the worlds first murderer should have walked free on the technicality that laws weren't in existence
*snip*

*snip*
I was using an extreme example intentionally to point how flawed the response was.
*snip*

It wouldn't be a technicality. If he committed the world's first murder (with no laws in place governing "murder", so basically, he killed someone), and then laws were put in place that made murder illegal, and he committed no murders from that point on, he has done nothing wrong (from the legal perspective). Just because you find the act of murder "wrong" doesn't matter, because he has abided by the social contract that is the law. You can't retroactively go back and punish him for an action he made before that action was made illegal.

To frame it in a different perspective, suppose speed limits didn't exist. You could drive at whatever speed you liked. Would it be dangerous? Reckless? Maybe, but there's no law stopping you from doing so, ergo, not illegal. Let's suppose this person regularly drives at 200 km/h.

One day, a new law is put in place that sets the speed limit everywhere at 50 km/h. Your argument would be akin to us punishing the person for having driven over the speed limit in the past, before a law was put in place mandating a defined legal speed limit, because a new law was put in place, even if he drove 50 km/h all the time moving forward.

The issue of jean-wearing was also brought up. Your argument would also mandate that if a law was ever put in place that jean-wearing is now illegal, anybody who has ever worn jeans in the past should be punished because of the new law.


Even in the instance where a law existed in the past, wherein the punishment then gets changed, you can't retroactively issue the new punishment to those who broke the law with the old punishment.

For example, here in Canada, driving 150 km/h+ on the highway (100 km/h speed limit) is typically a $10,000 fine, immediate suspension of your license, and impounding of your vehicle. That's the law, and everybody who breaks that law by exceeding that 150 km/h speed limit does so with the understanding that if caught, those are the punishements.

Lets say, for the sake of argument, that today, we change that punishment. Instead, anybody caught going 150 km/h+ on the highway is immediately executed. Just, dead. Now obviously, nobody would dare exceed that speed limit because the punishment is THAT severe. However, can you really go back and retroactively execute anybody who was caught going 150 km/h+ because of the new law? If they had known that the punishment would have been that severe, would they have sped that excessively?


To flip it on its head, though, let's take a law that was revoked. Prohibition. For a while, it was illegal to sell alcohol, and all those who did were breaking the law. Let's say the punishment if you were caught was a year in prison, and a $10,000 fine. Let's make the argument that, at this moment in time, prohibition laws are in place and it is illegal to sell alcohol, and I am caught selling alcohol. I get fined $10,000, and sent to prison for a year.

However, tomorrow, the prohibition laws get repealed, and it is now legal again to sell alcohol. Should my punishment be retroactively removed as well, because the law has now changed? Of course not! I broke the law, knowing what the punishment was, and must suffer the consequences.


I guess my point is, there was a set of rules and punishments previously. Events will be looking to establish a newer/more universal/more clearly defined set of rules and punishments moving forward. It would be unfair to punish people for past behaviors prior to this new set of rules. Punishments that were laid out under a previous set of rules, however, should still continue to be enforced.

It doesn't matter whether someone exhibited a certain behavior in the past, whether you consider it unethical/immoral, because this person engaged in that behavior under the knowledge of the previous ruleset and the punishments they would incur if they broke those rules and were caught. You enforce the previous punishments. If their continued behavior then breaks the new rules, you levy the new punishment.

In the case of the first murderer, he was cast out and marked. That is all that we are asking - that cheaters be ousted, never to return

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
In the case of the first murderer, he was cast out and marked. That is all that we are asking - that cheaters be ousted, never to return

Alright - now I 'm getting concerned if you should be at an event - or at least checked for branding irons and whips before entry.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:

 zedsdead wrote:
wait... did you actually just equate shooting a Phantom Plasma pistol in a table top game with Murder ?!

The US operates off the principle of "do it till it's illegal" and look at us right now.

The New England Patriots have won several Championships under this method.

You, sir, win the internet today.

Regarding the topic, the proposed policy from Reecius looks sound.

 ChargerIIC wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
In the case of the first murderer, he was cast out and marked. That is all that we are asking - that cheaters be ousted, never to return

Alright - now I 'm getting concerned if you should be at an event - or at least checked for branding irons and whips before entry.

If you aren't a cheater, you should not have any worries what the penalty might be

Because nothing bad ever happens to innocent people.

Across several events? Looking like deliberate cheating? No.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 ChargerIIC wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
In the case of the first murderer, he was cast out and marked. That is all that we are asking - that cheaters be ousted, never to return

Alright - now I 'm getting concerned if you should be at an event - or at least checked for branding irons and whips before entry.

If you aren't a cheater, you should not have any worries what the penalty might be

I think event organizers should be at least a little concerned about physical assault and maiming at an event.

You are just trolling at this point - there's no way you are that one-sided

And your reading in of "assault and maiming" isn't trolling of the highest? LOL

Question for the people suggesting permanent bans. Assuming that you are banning someone for life for cheating are you doing it to be punitive, to act as a deterrent/warning to others or, in the hopes that the punishment will make the person reform?

If it's punitive then how many strikes for a perma-ban? And, what level of conduct rises to a "strike"? Nudgina a model forward? Mis-adding points on your list (too many points)? Placing an extra model in a unit? Where are the lines drawn?

I'm going to assume the same answer to using the ban as a warning to others.

If you're trying to teach the person a lesson then how does that person prove themselves to have reformed?

This is only a game and conventions are open to the public. It can lead to some messy situations when you ban someone from a public event (either as a participant or an observer). This is especially true when the general public is invited to participate.

Just some thoughts/questions for all concerned.

If you’re treating this as a sport then bans are there to try and ensure fair play, not to worry about the fate and feelings of the cheater. If a known cheater is permitted to partake and win your sport loses credibility.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Question for the people suggesting permanent bans. Assuming that you are banning someone for life for cheating are you doing it to be punitive, to act as a deterrent/warning to others or, in the hopes that the punishment will make the person reform?

If it's punitive then how many strikes for a perma-ban? And, what level of conduct rises to a "strike"? Nudgina a model forward? Mis-adding points on your list (too many points)? Placing an extra model in a unit?

If you're trying to teach the person a lesson then how does that person prove themselves to have reformed?

Yes, permaban is punitive. Yes, it's a warning. No, I don't care if that person claims to reform.

Normally, someone would get at least 1 warning, 1 chance, because accidents do happen. A nudge might be forgivable, as tables aren't perfect. But adding extra points, adding extra models, using extra wargear? That's definitely cheating, and should certainly be penalized.

Also, your concern is misplaced. It's not about the cheater, which is why it's permanent. It's actually about everyone else that paid money and time to be at the event, protecting their right to a fair and honest game. If you don't get that, then that's your problem in a nutshell.

Nudging a model forward? Miss-adding points on your list (too many points)? Placing an extra model in a unit? Where are the lines drawn?

What line? this is all 100% cheating.

Also, your concern is misplaced. It's not about the cheater, which is why it's permanent. It's actually about everyone else that paid money and time to be at the event, protecting their right to a fair and honest game. If you don't get that, then that's your problem in a nutshell.

It boggles my mind that people don't get this.

I get it and I'm not really concerned with the "cheating party". I'm concerned about the events themselves. The TOs have to consider the ramifications of their actions. In the US there is always someone out there willing to sue for their "entitlement" or at least cause problems for someone they don't like.

Most, if not all, of the major events are held in public venues are open to the public for participation and viewing. There could be a question of whether a TO can actually prevent someone from attending/participating at that event. There is no question that if the person violates the rules of that event that they can be asked to leave but until that violation occurs then they may have the same right to attend/participate as any other person.

TL/DR It may be impossible to enforce a ban on someone's participation in a public event without a legal restraining order or some such.

I get it and I'm not really concerned with the "cheating party". I'm concerned about the events themselves. The TOs have to consider the ramifications of their actions. In the US there is always someone out there willing to sue for their "entitlement" or at least cause problems for someone they don't like.

Most, if not all, of the major events are held in public venues are open to the public for participation and viewing. There could be a question of whether a TO can actually prevent someone from attending/participating at that event. There is no question that if the person violates the rules of that event that they can be asked to leave but until that violation occurs then they may have the same right to attend/participate as any other person.

TL/DR It may be impossible to enforce a ban on someone's participation in a public event without a legal restraining order or some such.

Yeah, I am pretty sure that 40K gamer is not a protected class in any U.S. Statute and there is no law on the books preventing a private event from not allowing someone to attend.