صفحه اصلیEnglish3rd half CHEATING

CHEATING
I can only come to 2 possible theories around kotj posts within this thread.
1st being, he is simply ‘being a troll’ or ‘trolling’, whichever you prefer.
The 2nd being he is not very bright and simply doesn’t understand what everyone else (except his little accomplice) are trying to say.
I really don’t think it’s the 2nd theory as his grammar and literacy are excellent (far better than mine).
So I can only come to the conclusion that you must be ‘trolling’?
Hutchie, Monks, Phalanx, coach etc, I think we are flogging a dead horse here.
. نوشته شده در
King of the Jungle (#Rugga) :

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.


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)

Show me a statement from Sweet Nitro saying that any of these things are against the rules. You see kotj, Black Monks is right again. You're the one trying to make a case for black and white truth, and we are the ones saying it's a grey area.
. نوشته شده در
Phalanx Damage Inc. :

Hutchie was actually very respectful in his reply, kotj. Clearly you're just here to argue and waste everyone's time.



i am just asking you to respect that I have the right to say it s cheating.

Again, i will repeat for one person who has some reading issues here (not talking aboit you)
- you have the right to say: “it s not cheating” as you don t break a gaming rule
- People have the right to say it s cheating as it goes against a code of ethics, morale (just read the definition if cheating again... B.M, sorry there is no tv show that explain the words in the dictionary).

You guys are proclaiming that you can only say “it s not cheating”, while I say you can admit both.

Anyway.. it really looks like you are all from the same guild..
. نوشته شده در
Don't worry guys, he is just doing another Cathy Newman tactic, strawman, get owned, claim the other is a meanie. Textbook channel 4. Nobody has the rugby spirit kotj professes, nobody who has ever played, and sadly kotj doesn't possess the rugby spirit that everyone else professes
. نوشته شده در
"HONESTY, IT WAS ONLY A LOAN" :

I can only come to 2 possible theories around kotj posts within this thread.
1st being, he is simply ‘being a troll’ or ‘trolling’, whichever you prefer.
The 2nd being he is not very bright and simply doesn’t understand what everyone else (except his little accomplice) are trying to say.
I really don’t think it’s the 2nd theory as his grammar and literacy are excellent (far better than mine).
So I can only come to the conclusion that you must be ‘trolling’?
Hutchie, Monks, Phalanx, coach etc, I think we are flogging a dead horse here.


Very smart way of thinking.. i would then tell you to read what is the MECE approach.. it could be interesting for you to make assumptions.
. نوشته شده در
King of the Jungle (#Rugga) :

Phalanx Damage Inc. :

Hutchie was actually very respectful in his reply, kotj. Clearly you're just here to argue and waste everyone's time.



i am just asking you to respect that I have the right to say it s cheating.

Again, i will repeat for one person who has some reading issues here (not talking aboit you)
- you have the right to say: “it s not cheating” as you don t break a gaming rule
- People have the right to say it s cheating as it goes against a code of ethics, morale (just read the definition if cheating again... B.M, sorry there is no tv show that explain the words in the dictionary).

You guys are proclaiming that you can only say “it s not cheating”, while I say you can admit both.

Anyway.. it really looks like you are all from the same guild..

You are not asking us to respect your opinion, you are asking us to agree, and if we agree, based on your statements that you agree with, we have to sy that we are not rugby players, we are not rugby fans and we are not former rugby players. That is an immature totalitarian nonsense view
. نوشته شده در
King of the Jungle (#Rugga) :

"HONESTY, IT WAS ONLY A LOAN" :

I can only come to 2 possible theories around kotj posts within this thread.
1st being, he is simply ‘being a troll’ or ‘trolling’, whichever you prefer.
The 2nd being he is not very bright and simply doesn’t understand what everyone else (except his little accomplice) are trying to say.
I really don’t think it’s the 2nd theory as his grammar and literacy are excellent (far better than mine).
So I can only come to the conclusion that you must be ‘trolling’?
Hutchie, Monks, Phalanx, coach etc, I think we are flogging a dead horse here.


Very smart way of thinking.. i would then tell you to read what is the MECE approach.. it could be interesting for you to make assumptions.


But you’re making assumptions that I and others are not rugby people because we disagree with you?
. نوشته شده در
Phalanx Damage Inc. :

King of the Jungle (#Rugga) :

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.


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)

Show me a statement from Sweet Nitro saying that any of these things are against the rules. You see kotj, Black Monks is right again. You're the one trying to make a case for black and white truth, and we are the ones saying it's a grey area.


If you can t understand “The rules infringed may be explicit, or they may be from an unwritten code of conduct based on morality, ethics or custom,“ in the cheating definition.. I can t help you..
. نوشته شده در
King of the Jungle (#Rugga) :

"HONESTY, IT WAS ONLY A LOAN" :

I can only come to 2 possible theories around kotj posts within this thread.
1st being, he is simply ‘being a troll’ or ‘trolling’, whichever you prefer.
The 2nd being he is not very bright and simply doesn’t understand what everyone else (except his little accomplice) are trying to say.
I really don’t think it’s the 2nd theory as his grammar and literacy are excellent (far better than mine).
So I can only come to the conclusion that you must be ‘trolling’?
Hutchie, Monks, Phalanx, coach etc, I think we are flogging a dead horse here.


Very smart way of thinking.. i would then tell you to read what is the MECE approach.. it could be interesting for you to make assumptions.

And everyone must follow your approach or they are being black and white....lmao
. نوشته شده در
King of the Jungle (#Rugga) :

Phalanx Damage Inc. :

King of the Jungle (#Rugga) :

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.


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)

Show me a statement from Sweet Nitro saying that any of these things are against the rules. You see kotj, Black Monks is right again. You're the one trying to make a case for black and white truth, and we are the ones saying it's a grey area.


If you can t understand “The rules infringed may be explicit, or they may be from an unwritten code of conduct based on morality, ethics or custom,“ in the cheating definition.. I can t help you..

A 3 second ruck breaks written rules.your thoughts?
. نوشته شده در