It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
@Neela (post edited a second time to add this tag, else it looks like I'm arguing with Steingrim, who ninja'd me)No. You're completely skirting the issue of mens rhea. Do you mean means? The 'whether he thinks it's legitimate or not' is more important than you seem to want to accept if we want to decide whether somebody cheated. Do you understand that cheating can be unintentional and all it requires is dishonesty(Which not asking about an advantage you are using that has been forbidden at a previous date and the rulebook not updated to reflect is dishonest.) By definition, a cheat is somebody who acts dishonestly, and that requires a conscious decision to break the rules. Dishonesty doesn't require intent. Dishonesty can occur without intent, and he gained an advantage that other competitors discarded from that dishonesty. This instance he cheated. Dishonesty by omission is still a thing. Further, let's flip it on its head: Two of your buddies considered the resolution and then discarded it as likely breaking the rules: You words, not mine. Now, again, let's damn them to the sixth hell, using your words, not mine: I used likely because I wasn't aware of the full story, having had this full story laid out now, I can see that it was almost quite certainly against the rules. At very least last year. Which would add impetus to call it cheating this year to use it without asking.Did they clarify it? Or did they just not do it?No but they also didn't gain a competitive advantage over other competitors that saw them to the finals. They shouldn't have to clarify things that are already done.Did they do due diligence, or did they just choose not to gain a competitive advantage that was in anyway in a grey area of the rules?No, because they shouldn't have had to do that due diligence. Because they weren't the ones taking an action potentially against the rules. And thus it wasn't a DUE diligence. It would come off as petty and delaying to ask.If there was any possible contention (which you've now admitted there was) No I have not, reread what I said, specifically this bit here, If there was any possible contention it should have been clarified and asked at the start, when he agreed to the rules, which can be interpretted as forbidding the thing which he was actively using to gain an advantage over his competition. it should have been clarified and asked at the start, when they agreed to the rules, which can be interpretted as not forbidding the thing which they were actively not using to gain an advantage over their competition.By this argument, I could invent a performance enhancing drug... Or hell, let's go another way. By this argument if there was an undetected, let's say bug or other method not listed in the rules that would cause an enemy to heartstop on command. And I used it. I should be fully allowed to do so. Because it's in a "gray area" and in some interpretations of the rules should be allowed and if the competitors wanted to make sure I couldn't use my new competitive advantage to heartstop them, they'd have to ask about something they might assume would be outside the scope of the rules.By your own argument this is an issue of interpretation, and as such you shouldn't be using it to cast aspersions on a person's motives and character.I am casting no aspersions on motives or character, I am saying objectively, as in without feeling or emotion attached, looking at only the evidence and what we had at the time. They had an advantage that was disallowed by the rules. They also didn't go about ensuring they were okay to have that advantage. And thus by that omission of seeking permission acted with dishonesty. To again, secure an advantage. Intent does not matter in this instance. They cheated, objectively, and admittedly. Quibbling about the rules will not help.
I understand that this is frustrating and not something that's easy to take.At the end of the day, the error was ours. We should have discovered it from the getgo and failed to. The fault is ours, not on Steingrim. There are a few reasons for the decision to re-do the competition. 1) We didn't feel like it was intentional cheating and that Steingrim should be disqualified for something that was our fault.2) We tried to figure out how to remove the buff from Steingrim. It turns out that it was not easy and I, myself was not around until the tail end of it to attempt to remove the buff. In the time that it took to discuss/remove the buff, some of the people that Steingrim had competed against had left. 3) We had considered just re-doing the matches throughout the week, but that would require getting both players on with enough time to prepare, and a judge to do it with them multiple times throughout the week. We did not know if this was feasible to pull off and worried that if we were unable to get all the participants around to compete again, that would be even worse than just re-opening it up for everyone. 4) Because we are re-opening it up for everyone, we gave out a consolation prize to everyone who participated in Justice this last weekend. It's unfortunate because some players may not be able to make it next weekend. Again, we made what we think is the best decision possible given the situation. We tried to do what is most fair to everyone. I understand that not everyone is going to agree with the decision to move forward in this manner, but I think any decision we made was going to leave a section of the players unhappy with the result. The best scenario would be to have it not have occurred to begin with, but as we're past that, we're doing what we can.