Is it cheating if the rules don't say anything about it?

[CelPatBruYanks]

I know there may be certain qualifiers that people would want address, so if you want to discuss those, post them. I just wanted to see the counts of simple yes's and no's.

[McCulloch]

A little context might help. In a game or a contest, then it is only the rules that apply, so it is not cheating unless you explicitly break the rules. Even then, there is a caveat: while the rules of Agricola say nothing about body-checking, I would think that it may be assumed that body-checking would be a violation.

In something less artificial, like real life, there are numerous unwritten rules. Doing something which may be legal, may still be considered cheating. IMO

[bluethread]

That is why we have the forward pass in football. It didn't occur to anyone that someone would purposely throw the ball toward their opponents backfield.

[Tiberius47]

I think that the spirit of any law is more important than the word of that law.

[Thatguy]

I know there may be certain qualifiers that people would want address, so if you want to discuss those, post them. I just wanted to see the counts of simple yes's and no's.

Let me answer with an example: In cub scouts we were given a kit to build race cars. There was a weight limit. The rules did not say that one had to use only the parts included in the kit. I added a lead weight to my car, keeping it within the weight limit.

Others accused me of cheating. I showed them the rules. If cheating is defined as breaking the rules, I did not cheat. If cheating is defined more generally as gaining an unfair advantage, I'd say I cheated. Although I did not break the rules, I knew I was going against the common understanding of them. By violating the spirit of the rules, I was not engaging in fair play.

I did not argue when they told me to remove the weight for the finals, even though I lost as a result. But I most definitely would have argued if I'd been brought up on a disciplinary charge for having cheated.

[McCulloch]

Let me answer with an example: In cub scouts we were given a kit to build race cars. There was a weight limit. The rules did not say that one had to use only the parts included in the kit. I added a lead weight to my car, keeping it within the weight limit.

Others accused me of cheating. I showed them the rules. If cheating is defined as breaking the rules, I did not cheat. If cheating is defined more generally as gaining an unfair advantage, I'd say I cheated. Although I did not break the rules, I knew I was going against the common understanding of them. By violating the spirit of the rules, I was not engaging in fair play.

I did not argue when they told me to remove the weight for the finals, even though I lost as a result. But I most definitely would have argued if I'd been brought up on a disciplinary charge for having cheated.

That's odd. When I was in Cubs (in Canada they are Cubs only not Cub Scouts), we built the same race cars. Just about everyone put lead weights into them to get as close to the weight limit as possible without exceeding it. This was not seen as unfair, but something that everyone could do. In my opinion, you did not cheat. If there was something unfair in your action, then the rules should be revised before the next event. If not, then then your winning tactic should be copied by all who wish to win in the future.

[Thatguy]

That's odd. When I was in Cubs (in Canada they are Cubs only not Cub Scouts), we built the same race cars. Just about everyone put lead weights into them to get as close to the weight limit as possible without exceeding it. This was not seen as unfair, but something that everyone could do. In my opinion, you did not cheat. If there was something unfair in your action, then the rules should be revised before the next event. If not, then then your winning tactic should be copied by all who wish to win in the future.

Dang it. If I gave you a list of names could you find out whatever became of these guys, write them, and suggest that I get to re-run the finals?

There is, as you and the football's forward pass person point out, a good argument for pushing rules to the edge. Taking the game in unexpected directions can result in the best, strongest results. The old fashioned, gentlemanly approach to the rules where you forego the advantages that innovation and cleverness can gain you in order to maintain the comfort of the status quo is not as likely to bring in new strategies or new players.

The race car example is why the letter of the law is often sounder than the spirit of the law. The letter of the law was there for all to read, if it wasn't banned then it was allowed. The spirit of the law might have disallowed more conduct, but how does one interpret the spirit? The Canadian way, which I unwittingly followed, was to allow what isn't banned. The American way in this case was to ban what wasn't specifically provided for you in the kit. One could have argued for either being the correct spirit.

I suppose you are right. Upon learning that others considered my move unfair, i still think I did the right thing by modifying my car to avoid a widespread feeling of unfairness. But it wouldn't have been cheating if I'd stood my ground and refused to placate the group to avoid its perception of cheating.

If there were an unwritten rule commonly followed that allowed for no outside materials, I suppose it would also not be cheating to violate that rule unless one actually knew of it. So cheating requires intentionally violating a rule you knew or should have known. I still don't know what the OP had in mind, though.

[CelPatBruYanks]

[quote="Thatguy"

If there were an unwritten rule commonly followed that allowed for no outside materials, I suppose it would also not be cheating to violate that rule unless one actually knew of it. So cheating requires intentionally violating a rule you knew or should have known. I still don't know what the OP had in mind, though.[/quote]

I was just looking for an idea of what people thought on the issue and how they stack up against my own beliefs. Personally, when it comes to rules, I have a very low view of unwritten rules because things can get so messy. I think written rules are the best. As a loophole chaser, I also don't like written rules with a lot of gray area or general, sweeping terms because then that allows the governing body to make biased judgments. If they don't like one person, they can punish them, while letting a favorite person slide for doing the essentially the same thing, or the exact same thing. Of course they can do the same thing with explicit, very exact and specific rules, but it becomes much more difficult for them to make biased judgements when the written rules are clear.

However, despite my loophole chasing, I always look at any advantage that I might gain that is not prohibited by the rules to see if it has the potential to harm any living thing in any way. If it does, I will forgo that advantage because I will not feel right about it.

And even where something might not be prohibited one bit, it may provide such a big advantage that whatever I am participating is no longer challenging. It becomes cheap; its like finding an exploit in a video game and then using it over and over. Where is the fun in that?

[bluethread]

And even where something might not be prohibited one bit, it may provide such a big advantage that whatever I am participating is no longer challenging. It becomes cheap; its like finding an exploit in a video game and then using it over and over. Where is the fun in that?

For some people(Anonymous) believe it is enough of a challenge just to find the exploit.

[preacher]

it's always easy and simple to know if you're committing a sin or not. just ask yourself, what is the true motivation of your actions. That's it. examine deep (and I mean really deep) into your heart, and you'll know if you have bad or good intention. if you only have good intention, then, it's not a sin. however if somewhere you find bad intention, or even worse, bad intention masked as good intention, then it's a sin. After all, that's how God will judge all of us in the final judgment.