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.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Cheating is never okay. And it should be dealt with appropriately by the TO at the event. Calling the Guy out on the internet anonymously is revenge, not justice.

This isn't an anonymous poster on the Internet. This is the owner of the Mordian Glory channel on YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sS038gS82Iw&feature=youtu.be

What's alarming about this video is the author is attacking other players to build a following. He's providing a model anyone can follow to build their own channel. This is very different from some anonymous poster going off on something he didn't like about the London GT, he's demonstrating how to amplify his complaints in a very loud manner that speaks to the culture of the hobby.

No thanks, I'm not down with a hobby driven by talking trash about other players. Just cancelled my subscription to his channel. Encouraging everyone to do the same, we need better batreps not callout streams.

His response is bit laughable but pretty typical.

I will address each complain you made against me, but first off I'll point out that there is a big big difference between cheating and making rules mistakes. Cheating is a deliberate action made with intent. If you believe this is something I did then I am frankly offended and can categorically state I do not cheat!!

That's the issue with accusing someone of cheating, they will deny at the time unless it was captured on a stream but even then they would deny.

You stated I checked my codex. Actually Adam had my codex next to you, and at many points YOU looked up the rules, not me. Since you had constant access to the codex, please don't blame me for reading anything wrong.

If you made the error, it is not up to the opponent to try and correct.

1. You have made reference to orbital bombard. It does indeed hit on 4+. And i do not remember trying to ever hit a character with. Why would I? They are anti tank one use.

2. The ap-2 burst cannons. This was my mistake. Not cheating!! I have spent the whole of 8th using riptides, this is my first time ever using tigersharks.
But your claim it cost you the game is simply false. When a game is close, its close, when you have 1 model left and your opponent has most of his army left.... Its not close. So it didn't cost you the match.

After so many mistakes you should just conceed. You have just ruined the game for someone and have gained an advantage how big or small.

3. The ap value of the seekers. This was done and pointed out in front of the T.O and frankly its rediculous you are mentioning a issue that was resolved that caused no problems, and I even let loose any missiles I had left. You then said in front of the T.O that you were.... Quote "Very happy with that"

You had a big advantage here. Of course you're happy to let it go. As an opponent you should have offered to reroll.

4. Your mention of - 1 to hit I played right. Remember I had 2 commanders and they were always near your unit I made - 1. I'm not sure where your confusion with my play in this is, but I did play it correct. The only thing I can think is you may have interpreted my wording as a - 1 to hit for the unit. This is a misunderstanding.

And if he fired multiple times with a penalty you should have corrected him. It is up to you to ensure he is applying the modifiers correctly.

5. Your complaint about my hidden fire warrior. This one makes no sense. You had a warlord near an objective. You asked if he was on the objective. I said yes. Because yes your warlord was in 3" of it. But my firewarrior controlled it. Thats tactical play and its not my job to tell you where my stuff is.

Intentionally misleading you opponent is unsportsmanlike conduct. You knew his intent and you let him make a move that was pointless.

6. Wounds on longstrike. I can't comment on this because I don't remember saying that nor you doing 13 wounds right off. If I comment on this I would be lieing, so I can only apologise if this is the case.

Another game changing mistake.

Also I have all my books for all my units with me. Why wouldn't I.

If you need to look up rules more than once you need to have the rules handy. Perhaps I can suggest you show your opponent in the future the rules and protect yourself.

Now while I understand loosing a game is never fun, I am a little upset given I really enjoyed playing you and our game. I have zero interest in. Cheating as it means any win I have is worthless. It degrades me as a player, and de values any standing I have

There have been a number of people come out against you, I dont think you have much standing in the community. Even your supposed friend knows of your poor standing. That says a lot.

So I once again state I did not cheat. I may have made a rule mistake, but these things do happen. And I apologise once again."

You made so many mistakes its a little bit suspicious don't you think? Once again at competitive level, you need to own up to your mistakes that are affecting other peoples enjoyment.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 techsoldaten wrote:


No thanks, I'm not down with a hobby driven by talking trash about other players. Just cancelled my subscription to his channel. Encouraging everyone to do the same, we need better batreps not callout streams.

I think you would be in the minority, this is hardly MG's modus operandi. MG is using his platform to express a distaste for cheating in a hobby most of us do for fun. All of his other content is positive to the game and tournaments he attends.

Also he barely even does batreps, its not his specialty so you are right do unsub. Maybe try Tabletop Tactics, those are some good batreps.

I just realised something... how pathetic are our lives that a child game is getting us so heated and angry at each other... I think i'm going to go afk for a while... I need to consider my life.

 lolman1c wrote:
I just realised something... how pathetic are our lives that a child game is getting us so heated and angry at each other... I think i'm going to go afk for a while... I need to consider my life.

1) its not a childs game, its a hobby forsome, important to life for others (Example it helped my depression a lot)
2) people put a lot of time and money into it, its more than a hobby for some
3) its poor sportsmanship, all competitive environments dont like cheaters, its highly disrespectful

The game might not be to important to you, and that is ok, but for some it is important, and someone soiling that, especially if that someone had to spend money and travel to an event just to be disrespected for hours can really make you feel bad.

 lolman1c wrote:
I just realised something... how pathetic are our lives that a child game is getting us so heated and angry at each other... I think i'm going to go afk for a while... I need to consider my life.

IOW "It's only toy soldiers LUL!". Somewhere a certain curmudgeonly Scot is feeling vindication...

Its not trash talking players, its trash talking cheats.

Imagine you played golf with someone who was cheating repeatedly. Then over a beer a friend says they had the same experience. How are they worse for the hobby than the cheat?

On rules mistakes its about experience. Play one game of 40k every 6 months? Fine. Rules constantly change, new faqs, its not familiar.
When however you are active in the tournament scene, playing multiple games a month and by some weird fluke find all your mistakes are in your favour its very suspect that its by accident.

Maybe my perspective on this is skewed because 15 years or so ago (3rd edition) I was that guy. Twisting/forgetting rules, arguing distances to the millimetre, oh sorry my Codex is in another castle. Winning 40k was "my thing" - why should pesky things like sportsmanship get in the way?
Fortunately however I grew up and realised this behavior was toxic for the hobby and my enjoyment of it. Some people however won't change unless forced.

I think we need to get around to the understanding that publicly naming people (who aren't in the public eye) for negative things is not good form. Naming them in conversation with TOs, over emails to the organisers and to the ITC is logical and reasonable. However, naming can lead to a number of unforeseen consequences which far exceed the nature of the allegations. In person discussions are fine and natural, but there is a difference when something is published online.

There is no definitive proof of these allegations, but that isn't actually a problem. There almost never will be in these situations. 40k is a social game and relies on a social contract to function. If, for example, the -1 was miscommunicated, then there is a responsibility to do it better. The most damning thing for me is the hidden fire warrior on the objective. The opposing player SHOULD have mentioned him, to do otherwise is deliberate gamesmanship (and they do not deny that they did it). It isn't fair play and is abusing the social contract for game advantage. That is what really sours me on that particular player .

Also, people saying innocent until proven guilty - this isn't a court of law.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:
I just realised something... how pathetic are our lives that a child game is getting us so heated and angry at each other... I think i'm going to go afk for a while... I need to consider my life.

IOW "It's only toy soldiers LUL!". Somewhere a certain curmudgeonly Scot is feeling vindication...

Haha, I was joking (I play 40k... i'm not a child, please read my previous comments here and chill). I'm not actually going to spend time considering my life (I'm past 1k posts on dakkadakka, I'm way beyond the point of no return). But no seriously, it is just a game (a game for children or not doesn't mater). The fact anyone (not saying this guy or any other guy is a cheater) has to cheat at a game just to feel like they have achieved something in life is really sad. When you think about all the other stuff you can achieve in life cheating at a game about space nazis isn't at the top of what you might be wanted to be known for in life.

My friend is helping to research rare and endangered aquatic species and she still has fun not cheating at 40k.
I moved to Vietnam in order to teach English in a developing country, I still have fun not cheating at 40k.
Many people here are people who served in the armed forces, they still have fun not cheating at 40k.

By no means am i saying anyone's achievements are better than others but we all did achieve something without having to cheat at a game. Hell, to be known as the best X player in a game is an achievement in my mind but to be known as the best cheater just doesn't have the same ring. I feel like I earned my respect as a tutor because I achieved it, not because I said my imaginary plasma gun on a fish in a Japanese robot suit was -4ap. Sooner or kater the truth always comes out so the best thing you can do is not cheat and just take the loss until you're good enough to win.

People like this NEED to be named and shamed. The bad guys win when you prevent making it clear who these donkey-caves are. This is why cheating is so prevalent; every time you have a situation like this, including all the recent problems at major events, nobody mentions the person in question so they get away relatively unscathed or, worse, go on a tangent saying how this was a lapse in judgment and they're really a nice guy etc. etc. No, they aren't. Stop coddling and hiding the identities of these bastards, it's the only way to actually punish them for it. Otherwise nothing will ever be done.

Cheating makes you a douche and your victories are not victories. Just don’t cheat.

Wayniac wrote:
People like this NEED to be named and shamed. The bad guys win when you prevent making it clear who these donkey-caves are. This is why cheating is so prevalent; every time you have a situation like this, including all the recent problems at major events, nobody mentions the person in question so they get away relatively unscathed or, worse, go on a tangent saying how this was a lapse in judgment and they're really a nice guy etc. etc. No, they aren't. Stop coddling and hiding the identities of these bastards, it's the only way to actually punish them for it. Otherwise nothing will ever be done.

Except multiple posts have already pointed out that public naming and shaming rarely works well nor as intended.

1) It's super easy to miss interpret, miss remember and make mistakes when reporting a possible cheater. Even in this very own example there are counterpoints being made. As a result without a live recording of the match its one person against another in a slinging match of words when its well after the event. That's a very big and good reason NOT to publicly name and shame because it creates a situation where anyone can abuse it. Public naming and shaming shouldn't be done by the players in a match; its too powerful a tool to be abused; to open for abuse and too easy to make big mistakes that have a crippling lasting effect.

2) Public stupidity and witch hunts. This can backfire in not just shaming someone but generating actual hate and rage and aggression against a person. Someone should not be getting hate mail, death threats; have their boss at work called up; potentially lose their job and income all because of allegations of cheating in a toy soldiers game. Even if its proven 100% its still punishment WAY beyond the crime and is not conductive to a healthy community atmosphere.

3) It's dickish and encourages a toxic atmosphere. This is another big thing. If people fear the potential of someone just publicly naming and shaming because of one wrong stat; or two wrong stats or even baseless (knowing that neither defence of accusation can prove the case, but that "no smoke without fire" mentality will kick in to bias in favour of the accuser). That's a competitive atmosphere many won't engage with; and unlike League of Legends its not free to play nor pick up and drop off; Wargaming is hours of work and travel and cost- people won't engage with that if the atmosphere is nasty.

4) Mistakes - as said earlier not everyone has a unique name and even within the hobby there are many repeat names (heck there's at least one game developer who has a shared name with a miniature wargame/boxed game developer). So its very easy for someone else to take all the hate and punishment in public when they might not even have been the person who is the accused.



Now I DO agree that any issues that arise in games should be reported and logged. Tournament Organisers should be recording each interaction (positive and negative) where they have to step in; along with the details of who was involved and what happened. This data should be collated and stored and shared with other Tournament Organisers with the view that it presents a comprehensive document that allows people to revive - in a calm and impartial manner- the behaviour of members. Those with repeat warnings can be flagged up - identifying them as either cheaters or people with issues in play (eg they might be very new and making lots of mistakes). This might mean a TO with one of those people attending might put someone to watch that players games more closely; it means they might approach someone of low skill and suggest that they play in the freegames rather than the tournament and offer the mto return later when they've a better grasp - or even offer to help teach them outside of the event; it might mean some people get bans from one event or many because of repeated issues.

THAT is a fair system that tallies the results; monitors them and deals with them in an appropriate manner that fits the accusation. Remembering that many people make mistakes in this game. Got an army with nearly all 3+ to hit and its dead easy to forget the 1 unit that is 4+ to hit etc... Not every mistake is a cheat - in fact many times its only repeat observation and collating of info and proof that can find a cheater unelss they are doing very bold cheating methods (eg loaded dice)

Tyel wrote:
Its not trash talking players, its trash talking cheats.

Imagine you played golf with someone who was cheating repeatedly. Then over a beer a friend says they had the same experience. How are they worse for the hobby than the cheat?

On rules mistakes its about experience. Play one game of 40k every 6 months? Fine. Rules constantly change, new faqs, its not familiar.
When however you are active in the tournament scene, playing multiple games a month and by some weird fluke find all your mistakes are in your favour its very suspect that its by accident.

Maybe my perspective on this is skewed because 15 years or so ago (3rd edition) I was that guy. Twisting/forgetting rules, arguing distances to the millimetre, oh sorry my Codex is in another castle. Winning 40k was "my thing" - why should pesky things like sportsmanship get in the way?
Fortunately however I grew up and realised this behavior was toxic for the hobby and my enjoyment of it. Some people however won't change unless forced.

I don't need to think about golf, it's a different game. Apples and oranges.

Some of the most enjoyable games of 40k I've ever played were against opponents who were actively cheating. Gregariously, with aplomb and panache. Those games were beautiful and I still laugh about them.

The problem with cheating won't be solved until GW implements a system that awards victory points for getting away with spectacular violations of the rules. It's not hard to recognize the creativity that goes into a good cheat, it shares something with the imagination fueling the desire to build a good army. You love it, you want it to be the best it can be, and sometimes the rules just don't reflect what you think it should do. So, consciously or unconsciously, this internal picture of how your army should operate affects how you play the game.

I don't see this as something to be discouraged so much as understood.

Hard-liners stomping down on infractions make me very uncomfortable because they are so far removed from the majority of 40k hobbyists. Most of my enjoyment of the game comes from meeting other players and my experience has been that there are many who are never going to get the rules right. More than the number who will. They're not necessarily malicious or stupid, operating in a closed system that requires players to precisely execute on a set of rules is simply not their strength. I'd argue this describes the majority of people who are into the 40k hobby and it's part of the reason we see so many more painters than players. No one wants to participate in a system where they feel they can't succeed and these highly-visible examples of public condemnation over relatively minor problems only makes the game seem less inviting. Similar to the way one might have reservations about signing up for Scientology over the white shirts...

I say 'minor problems' because - in all these threads about the epidemic problem with cheating - I have yet to see an example where someone's cheat actually affects the outcome of the game. I've read the arguments that any breach is too much, and it's fine some people feel that way. But I certainly would avoid these people, not because I'm looking to cheat, but because they sound ready to persecute anyone over the slightest perceived infraction. The response is immoderate. These people's obsession often extends beyond other players to tournament organizers and actual winners, to the point where I wonder why anyone would want to go through the hassle of trying to accommodate them. All the talk about trying to achieve some good, to fix a problem - it's hollow because the response is so extreme. No one deserves having an internet hate mob thrown in their face for not playing with little army men to your satisfaction. No one who sees this happening is going to say, yeah, I need to get in on that.

The OP is shining a pretty big spotlight on his opponent. His vigilante efforts to introduce a human flesh search engine into the 40k community are unimpressive other than for the masterful execution of the principle of going overboard. He's given us an example we can all learn from in where not to go. Those saying he's done right are giving us great examples in how reality warps trying to justify bad actions.

Tell yourself whatever you want, there's nothing good about this. Other people have flaws, deal with them in a way that makes you look like an adult and keeps the community from look like a bunch of persecutorial rules zealots.

It's definitely an interesting moral dilemma. If you know he is a cheater then this is a good was to punish him but also a way that could hurt him.

I still stand that naming always has a chance of extreme negative effects that I wouldn't even chance on someone. But then again, I do dislike cheating a lot. I once chated... it was about 10 years ago in a game called gmod. I downloaded a auto aim and just sat on a deathmatch server in the corner. I uninstalled it that day... was so incredibly boring. At first i loved the attention of being first but over time I never felt like I earned the top spot. Cheating is an interesting addiction and can easily be obtained. You cheat once and it feels good but over time it fades so you cheat more. Eventually you lie to yourself so much that you don't even realise you cheat anymore.

Good game to play is a game where you're expected to cheat and encouraged to do so. Games where you have to lie to your opponents. Then you genuinely earn the top spot. And a good way to spend an afternoon.

He entered a publically viewable tournament and used no code name or player tag. You put yourself in the public eye, it's on you if you behave as an ass. There's literally no other name to refer to him by than his real one, and we WILL address cheaters when it happens. Asking people not to will never happen, so pointless debate, and from a moral perspective it's thin, we cab discuss this stuff. Thanks.

CassianSol wrote:
The most damning thing for me is the hidden fire warrior on the objective. The opposing player SHOULD have mentioned him, to do otherwise is deliberate gamesmanship (and they do not deny that they did it). It isn't fair play and is abusing the social contract for game advantage. That is what really sours me on that particular player .

The thing with this is it really depends on what was asked. The important thing in a case like this is to not lie to your opponent. If they ask if they control the objective tell them. If they ask if their character is in range of the objective you don't have to add anything other than yes or no. If they ask where your units are, point out each unit. If they forget a unit is somewhere you don't have to remind them. Saying otherwise is like saying it's poor sportmanship to point out in a tournament that they could easily kill your dark reapers instead of your guardians when they're about to shoot your guardians instead.

Playing tactically isn't poor sportsmanship, lying to your opponent to get an advantage is. You don't talk your opponent through all your plays as you make them or tell them what you're planning to do on your next turn when they're about to start their turn.

 IronBrand wrote:

CassianSol wrote:
The most damning thing for me is the hidden fire warrior on the objective. The opposing player SHOULD have mentioned him, to do otherwise is deliberate gamesmanship (and they do not deny that they did it). It isn't fair play and is abusing the social contract for game advantage. That is what really sours me on that particular player .

The thing with this is it really depends on what was asked. The important thing in a case like this is to not lie to your opponent. If they ask if they control the objective tell them. If they ask if their character is in range of the objective you don't have to add anything other than yes or no. If they ask where your units are, point out each unit. If they forget a unit is somewhere you don't have to remind them. Saying otherwise is like saying it's poor sportmanship to point out in a tournament that they could easily kill your dark reapers instead of your guardians when they're about to shoot your guardians instead.

Playing tactically isn't poor sportsmanship, lying to your opponent to get an advantage is. You don't talk your opponent through all your plays as you make them or tell them what you're planning to do on your next turn when they're about to start their turn.

I call BS on that.
When the guy asks about the distance to the objective, its's obvious what his intentions are, and his opponent should indicate the presence of the Tau Fire Warrior contesting it "you are within 3", but don't forget my guy here is still controlling it". A player shouldn't have to wander around the whole table looking for hidden troops.

 IronBrand wrote:

CassianSol wrote:
The most damning thing for me is the hidden fire warrior on the objective. The opposing player SHOULD have mentioned him, to do otherwise is deliberate gamesmanship (and they do not deny that they did it). It isn't fair play and is abusing the social contract for game advantage. That is what really sours me on that particular player .

The thing with this is it really depends on what was asked. The important thing in a case like this is to not lie to your opponent. If they ask if they control the objective tell them. If they ask if their character is in range of the objective you don't have to add anything other than yes or no. If they ask where your units are, point out each unit. If they forget a unit is somewhere you don't have to remind them. Saying otherwise is like saying it's poor sportmanship to point out in a tournament that they could easily kill your dark reapers instead of your guardians when they're about to shoot your guardians instead.

Playing tactically isn't poor sportsmanship, lying to your opponent to get an advantage is. You don't talk your opponent through all your plays as you make them or tell them what you're planning to do on your next turn when they're about to start their turn.

In MtG tournaments, lying about public information will get you game losses, match losses or even removed from the tournament (depending on how often you do it at what level of event). Things that anyone could see, like that hiding Tau warrior, number of wounds left on a model or the stats of a weapon.

MtG also punishes you for not telling your opponent when he is playing the rules wrong, especially if it's in your favor. You would have to tell your opponent if he is putting a -1 modifier on his shooting when he shouldn't. It's called failure to maintain the game state.

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

This thread, despite baconcat's attempt to derail it has been pretty interesting, but I haven't seen the TO's response discussed much.

Why is it that the TO just decided "its too late sorry" after OP pointed out that the cheater killed his tanks with -4ap weapons that were really -2ap?

It shouldn't really matter if it was an 'honest mistake' that he claimed they were -4ap. If it's 'too late' and you can't go back, then the person who made the mistake is disqualified and looses the match.

A more lenient approach would just be to nullify the damage completely and continue the game. That could be disruptive a turn after the fact, but frankly - too bad.

I know people don't want to bash TOs for their calls - and I'm not trying to do so. Players should be thankful to TOs who spend their time running things, but clear rules with consequences would go a long way in these situations.

SirWeeble wrote:
This thread, despite baconcat's attempt to derail it has been pretty interesting, but I haven't seen the TO's response discussed much.

Why is it that the TO just decided "its too late sorry" after OP pointed out that the cheater killed his tanks with -4ap weapons that were really -2ap?

It shouldn't really matter if it was an 'honest mistake' that he claimed they were -4ap. If it's 'too late' and you can't go back, then the person who made the mistake is disqualified and looses the match.

A more lenient approach would just be to nullify the damage completely and continue the game. That could be disruptive a turn after the fact, but frankly - too bad.

I know people don't want to bash TOs for their calls - and I'm not trying to do so. Players should be thankful to TOs who spend their time running things, but clear rules with consequences would go a long way in these situations.

Hard to know, but honestly in these situations making a call is better than prevaricating. The call the TO made isn't necessarily the right one, but it wasn't calling something incorrectly, it just swept away the immediate concern and got the game to continue to play. I can see the value in that.

 bullyboy wrote:

 IronBrand wrote:

CassianSol wrote:
The most damning thing for me is the hidden fire warrior on the objective. The opposing player SHOULD have mentioned him, to do otherwise is deliberate gamesmanship (and they do not deny that they did it). It isn't fair play and is abusing the social contract for game advantage. That is what really sours me on that particular player .

The thing with this is it really depends on what was asked. The important thing in a case like this is to not lie to your opponent. If they ask if they control the objective tell them. If they ask if their character is in range of the objective you don't have to add anything other than yes or no. If they ask where your units are, point out each unit. If they forget a unit is somewhere you don't have to remind them. Saying otherwise is like saying it's poor sportmanship to point out in a tournament that they could easily kill your dark reapers instead of your guardians when they're about to shoot your guardians instead.

Playing tactically isn't poor sportsmanship, lying to your opponent to get an advantage is. You don't talk your opponent through all your plays as you make them or tell them what you're planning to do on your next turn when they're about to start their turn.

I call BS on that.
When the guy asks about the distance to the objective, its's obvious what his intentions are, and his opponent should indicate the presence of the Tau Fire Warrior contesting it "you are within 3", but don't forget my guy here is still controlling it". A player shouldn't have to wander around the whole table looking for hidden troops.

Exactly. Thank you.

I heard someone was told by a judge (after calling out a mistake when watching two players) that their role wasn't to solve rule errors it was just to keep the game moving by picking a side when an argument starts.

There's certainly an argument that that's what the judge's role is - to keep the game moving swiftly and with optimal fairness, not necessarily to ensure the rules are followed to the letter.

We think 'Judge' means 'ensures the rules were followed'. Even legally (in the US), that's not what they do. The US courts system is an adversarial system: for something to come before a judge, there must be a specific argument between two people - the plaintiff and the defender, or the state and the accused.

The idea is that settling disputes or clarifying the law where there is no complaint is effectively wasted effort. Further, an individual getting a declaration from the court absent another individual trying to prevent it / arguing against it makes it very hard to ensure both sides of the issue are heard.

It's interesting stuff. Look at the Supreme Court opinions when DOMA got struck down (the precursor to homosexual marriage becoming legal in all 50). The dissenting opinion (those who didn't want to strike it down) didn't argue that DOMA was legal. They argued that there was no disagreement: a lower court had ruled that DOMA was illegal, and nobody (nobody who has a legal right to care) was disputing that. In essence, the justices that disagreed with overturning DOMA were saying "Nobody's saying it's legal in the first place - so we shouldn't even care". Now, that saga gets a lot more complicated as you dig into it, but I find that that's a cool bit of trivia.

Back on topic - the US Courts system has a similar setup. They don't exist to judge in a vacuum: they can only render judgement to settle a disagreement. Sounds like the judge you heard has a similar mandate - they're there to resolve disputes, not apply the rules.

So can anyone provide actual proof that:

1) the player in question was actually cheating.

Or

2) the accuser is making his claims up because he lost to hurt the guy who beat him.

If your favorite sports team looses and a player or coach goes on a rant to the media that they only lost because the other team's star player dopes, what do you think would happen to the guy ranting? They'd probably get hit with fines and suspensions because it is poor behavior that reflects badly on the sport. The accusations also might not have any grounding in reality. If the player had suspicions, they should have gone to the people who run their organization.

Cheaters should be punished, yes. Accused cheaters shouldn't have to deal with Internet lynch mobs based on the words of their supposed victim. What happens if it turns out the accuser is making things up? I realize that waiting for TOs to investigate claims of cheating lacks the instant gratification of righteous indignation but unless there is real evidence than you could just be getting played by the OP.

Maybe the accused's reply indicated some sketchy behavior but using one's internet presence rather than going to the TO to get vindication is super sketchy in my book.

Skaorn wrote:
So can anyone provide actual proof that:

1) the player in question was actually cheating.

Watch. The. Video. In. The. OP.

OP was motivated to make this video via corroborated evidence from several other gamers who have played the guy. No smoke without fire- Are you saying every single person who has had a negative play experience with this guy is making it up? Occam's razor would say no.

 bullyboy wrote:

 IronBrand wrote:

CassianSol wrote:
The most damning thing for me is the hidden fire warrior on the objective. The opposing player SHOULD have mentioned him, to do otherwise is deliberate gamesmanship (and they do not deny that they did it). It isn't fair play and is abusing the social contract for game advantage. That is what really sours me on that particular player .

The thing with this is it really depends on what was asked. The important thing in a case like this is to not lie to your opponent. If they ask if they control the objective tell them. If they ask if their character is in range of the objective you don't have to add anything other than yes or no. If they ask where your units are, point out each unit. If they forget a unit is somewhere you don't have to remind them. Saying otherwise is like saying it's poor sportmanship to point out in a tournament that they could easily kill your dark reapers instead of your guardians when they're about to shoot your guardians instead.

Playing tactically isn't poor sportsmanship, lying to your opponent to get an advantage is. You don't talk your opponent through all your plays as you make them or tell them what you're planning to do on your next turn when they're about to start their turn.

I call BS on that.
When the guy asks about the distance to the objective, its's obvious what his intentions are, and his opponent should indicate the presence of the Tau Fire Warrior contesting it "you are within 3", but don't forget my guy here is still controlling it". A player shouldn't have to wander around the whole table looking for hidden troops.

I would personally have answered the question pointing out my model is controlling the objective. Though, if somebody answered "is my model controlling this objective" with "your model is withing 3 inches" then I would be seeing why that was the answer and not that I controlled it. of all the stuff listed this is one of the few I don't really have an issue with. I take much more offense with claiming ap-2 weapons are ap-4 and such. I don't play much in tournaments anymore, probably mostly because I can't help but giving my opponents advice before they make bad moves or chose bad targets reminding them of my units profiles.

Personally I don't see the issue with the objective complaint. If my guy's hidden, then yes you should think you have the objective. Just like if your guy is hidden, I should be led to believe I control the objective.
The guy wouldn't be hidden if everyone knew where he was!

It would be my fault for not remembering "Oh wait, he had a guy over here somewhere" That's part of getting good at a strategy game is paying attention to what your opponent is doing!

 Jidmah wrote:
In MtG tournaments, lying about public information will get you game losses, match losses or even removed from the tournament (depending on how often you do it at what level of event). Things that anyone could see, like that hiding Tau warrior, number of wounds left on a model or the stats of a weapon.

MtG also punishes you for not telling your opponent when he is playing the rules wrong, especially if it's in your favor. You would have to tell your opponent if he is putting a -1 modifier on his shooting when he shouldn't. It's called failure to maintain the game state.

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.

Skaorn wrote:
So can anyone provide actual proof that:

1) the player in question was actually cheating.

Or

2) the accuser is making his claims up because he lost to hurt the guy who beat him.

If you're claiming that the op is just making up nonsense, i counter with a challenge: Do you really exist? Prove it!

But if we're assuming that OPs information isn't a absolute lie, then yes, the opponent did cheat. He may not have purposely cheated. Maybe he's just really bad, forgetful, or has problems seeing/reading. Even if that is true, he did cheat.

SirWeeble wrote:

Skaorn wrote:
So can anyone provide actual proof that:

1) the player in question was actually cheating.

Or

2) the accuser is making his claims up because he lost to hurt the guy who beat him.

If you're claiming that the op is just making up nonsense, i counter with a challenge: Do you really exist? Prove it!

But if we're assuming that OPs information isn't a absolute lie, then yes, the opponent did cheat. He may not have purposely cheated. Maybe he's just really bad, forgetful, or has problems seeing/reading. Even if that is true, he did cheat.

Ok, prove to me that your not the OP's friend, follower, or just the OP on a dummy account. If you actually read my post my issue is the OP running around YouTube and forums smearing this guy's name rather than working with the TO about it. In many places this would be deemed unacceptable in modern society. A person should not be harassed by someone over something like this be someone on the other side of the planet who likely would have no contact with this guy other than the OP throwing a tantrum on the internet, instead of handling things like a responsible adult. Then again, I suppose any views for his channel are good views.

If you want to believe everything you read or see on the internet that is convenient for you, feel free. I wasn't there and it has no effect on me here in the USA. I don't know which one of these guys is telling the truth and which is lying. Both are biased which is why I'd rather base my opinion on what happened on the findings of the TO who should have an interest in being fair and impartial. But he has a reputation!!! So what, through most of my time in school people thought I was a hardcore drug using satanist. Reputation can be manipulated. In the areas I play in, cheaters get outed, they stop getting people to play with, and TOs watch them like a hawk, if they weren't banned from the tourney already. Sure it isn't the instant gratification of slamming someone on the internet but it's based on yours and your community's actual experiences. What happens if the accused is proven to be innocent by an investigation by the TO? You going to double down and claim it's a conspiracy or accept that maybe this was not the best behavior? Maybe I'm being too suspicious of both but there was this guy from Nigeria who seemed so trustworthy and in need of help...

kaotkbliss wrote:
Personally I don't see the issue with the objective complaint. If my guy's hidden, then yes you should think you have the objective. Just like if your guy is hidden, I should be led to believe I control the objective.
The guy wouldn't be hidden if everyone knew where he was!

It would be my fault for not remembering "Oh wait, he had a guy over here somewhere" That's part of getting good at a strategy game is paying attention to what your opponent is doing!

It isn't hidden from you the player, it is hidden from your models. There is a distinction.

I wouldn't criticise him for not saying, "oh don't forget this model is over here" (although it would be nice), but I think it is outrageous to do what he did when specifically asked about it.

 techsoldaten wrote:

Tell yourself whatever you want, there's nothing good about this. Other people have flaws, deal with them in a way that makes you look like an adult and keeps the community from look like a bunch of persecutorial rules zealots.

The OP raising this issue doesn't make the community toxic, far from it. There are certain members of our community that are the toxic ones and hopefully this extra attention makes them address their own behaviour. it will mean that anyone that comes up against said target players will be sure to keep an eye on the rules like a hawk. This will be even more important to people who are new to the game that these toxic players are known to take advantage of.

Remember the ATC incident. Many of the opponents of the targeted players stated they kept an extra eye on making sure the targeted players kept to the rules. It's actually healthy for the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Skaorn wrote:
So can anyone provide actual proof that:

1) the player in question was actually cheating.

Or

2) the accuser is making his claims up because he lost to hurt the guy who beat him.

If your favorite sports team looses and a player or coach goes on a rant to the media that they only lost because the other team's star player dopes, what do you think would happen to the guy ranting? They'd probably get hit with fines and suspensions because it is poor behavior that reflects badly on the sport. The accusations also might not have any grounding in reality. If the player had suspicions, they should have gone to the people who run their organization.

Cheaters should be punished, yes. Accused cheaters shouldn't have to deal with Internet lynch mobs based on the words of their supposed victim. What happens if it turns out the accuser is making things up? I realize that waiting for TOs to investigate claims of cheating lacks the instant gratification of righteous indignation but unless there is real evidence than you could just be getting played by the OP.

Maybe the accused's reply indicated some sketchy behavior but using one's internet presence rather than going to the TO to get vindication is super sketchy in my book.

Well both parties get their say on it in the court of public opinion.

And it appears that the accused made multiple mistakes and poor sportsmanship choices, by his own admission. Further his character has been in question by multiple sources. Perhaps we could hear from the TO to get a final say on the matter.

Both the OP and the accused are well known in their community. Could the OP use his upstanding character to assassinate someone with already a sketchy history? Its possible but where there's smoke there's fire. You can't make stuff up for the most part and the OP has demonstrated that the accused made several mistakes.

At the end of the day there is very little punishment for those who break the rules so if you don't get a satisfactory response mid game, you just have to cop it. Arguing with a TO is unacceptable and in this case the OP did the right thing. You say cheaters should be punished when in reality finding out if someone cheated is almost impossible.

The best thing to come out of this is that future opponents of the accused will keep an eye out on his behaviour. Might be a little hard that his name has been removed.