We are the Hutchie :

I believe that I understand the definition of the word “cheating”. You seem to be confusing it with the words “morality” and “ethics”.

I have no desire to argue with you about the definition of a word, so I will not post again on this thread. I respect your right to be wrong and hope that you will respect my right to be wrong. At least that way, one of us will be right, probably.

Dragon blade :

KOTJ - there's a small clique on here that will support whatever each other say. I am real life captain of a rugby team that play @ a gd level ;)..

Phalanx Damage Inc. :

Kotj, I'm going to try to avoid long posts because they're boring. You and I probably will agree on a lot. All I'm saying is, I agree with Black Monks' comment on the first page that 1 and 2 are "niggle" and not strictly cheating, as there are no rules in place in the game strictly prohibiting those things. It would probably be very difficult to regulate anyway. So they're more of an exploitation of weaknesses in the game. Like it or not, that's what it is but we can't call it cheating because there's no explicit rule against it. 2 is part of the game itself so clearly not cheating.

King of the Jungle (#Rugga) :



As you said “they're more of an exploitation of weaknesses in the game. “
While I can t forbid you to say “it s not cheating”, (I am not asking you to change your mind), you can t forbid people from saying “it s cheating”, or “it s not a debate, it s a fact”.. as it goes against morale, ethic and code of conduct (for some people).

None of you can show me a statement from SweetNitro saying “you are allowed to agree with your opponent to agree on a draw”.
Then, as you said “you exploit a weakness of a game”

From a gaming perspective, it s not cheating.. From a rugby spirit perspective, it s definitely cheating..

So it s all about how you play the game (as a gamer or as somebody who wants to stay close to Rugby spirit).

And I can t understand why some people can claim that there only one truth “it s not cheating”. (Which is a bit pretentious and dishonest when they have the definition of cheating in front of them).

Can you admit that people has also the right to think it s cheating? (and they are not totally wrong.. as you have the right to think it s not cheating)

Black Monks :

Kotj, thanks for joining us and telling everyone how they aren't real rugby players. Phalanx gave plenty of examples and you shot down one and claimed victory. So please no essay response here, slowing down a ruck is an art that requires breaking the written rules of the game but doing so just less than will result in a penalty. 3 second rucks on defense win games and players were selected for the lions tour because of their ability to do this. According to your strict definition I feel this would be not only cheating but go against your spirit of rugby. In a short response tell me if I'm wrong (see how I don't make a strawman, I say how I see what your saying and give you an opportunty., I'm not a coward that thinks they made a good point and even when shot down I beat my chest). So does your definition need loosening or does your ideal of the rugby spirit simply not exist anywhere?