Pls Delete

"Ravens1113;c-2387040" wrote:

"Ultra;c-2387037" wrote:

"StarSon;c-2387034" wrote:
The name and shame rule is there to protect CG, not the cheater. If we can't name and shame, then we can't track CG not banning the cheaters.

I think its a good rule in the sense it protects people from being harassed from false allegations

There are people who claim xyz is cheating just because they think they set a good defense but its a beatable defense and are quick to harass that player without knowing they lost fair and square

Personally I would love a name and shame thread

Except in instances like this…

ok but that doesn't mean we will have lots of instances where a player hasn't cheated and being harassed and accused of cheating by a sore loser if naming and shaming was a lot

Those instances are immediately locked and removed from the board, so...

"MasterSeedy;c-2387030" wrote:
@Legend91

You can already name and shame on a million and one infinities worth of websites. CG makes the rules the way that they do b/c while this one seems ridiculously clear to us, what if someone else posts something that THEY think is clear, but others do not. CG doesn't want to bicker and argue over who killed who which cheating is obvious and clear and which cheating is pretty convincing to most people but certainly not proven, etc.

Here the rule is clear: no identifying potential cheaters, no matter how definitive you think the case against them may be.

Personally I find it liberating, because I don't have to worry about fuzzy lines either. I know the rules and can follow them easily.

However, there are lots of places SWGOH players gather on the internet, and you're almost certainly free to name and shame there, if it's important to you. You are free to go there and do what you feel you need to do (so long as it doesn't break the TOS of that website).

You find it liberating to not have to exercise your own discretion?

I don't prefer to be told how I feel, or what is right or wrong.

Edit: and yes I see the irony in me talking about discretion ?. I'd still rather try and be wrong.

You find it liberating to not have to exercise your own discretion?

Let me clarify: I find rules that are easy to follow less burdensome than rules that are vague and difficult to follow, resulting in the potential that I act in good faith, believing myself to be following the rules, and then end up banned or suspended because my interpretation of a vague rule is different than someone else's interpretation of a vague rule.

Obviously it's more "liberating" not to have the rule at all, but I was comparing two different scenarios, not all possible scenarios.

Also I think it's fair to say that tolerating harassment by having no rules against harassment isn't really "liberating" either. yes, you have fewer rules, but if the venue becomes toxic because only people who love harassing and abusing others are attracted to venues that don't shut down harassment and abuse then you lose that venue altogether.

Look at Twitter. Lots of people have left twitter b/c they can't stand to be on with all the harassment and abuse. People aren't more "liberated" because Twitter doesn't have consistent standards (or doesn't enforce them consistently, which amounts to the same thing). Facebook kills the accounts of women whose babies are snuggled up to their breasts, feeding, even though no nipple is visible because that's supposedly "porn", but tolerates selfies that are obviously designed to titillate, not to mention ads from porn makers. It's not only ridiculous and terrible, but it leads to moms being accused, not in so many words, of child porn, since the picture is banned on account of porn and it had a child in it.

No, I don't really trust tech companies to enforce vague standards and I am more comfortable expressing my opinions here when the rules are clear.

Anyway, I hope that clears up the earlier comment. I agree "liberated by strict rules" did come across wrong, so sorry about that.

Buggy game, cheaters can cheat, but if you criticize CG they put you in CG jail

"MasterSeedy;c-2387120" wrote:

You find it liberating to not have to exercise your own discretion?

Let me clarify: I find rules that are easy to follow less burdensome than rules that are vague and difficult to follow, resulting in the potential that I act in good faith, believing myself to be following the rules, and then end up banned or suspended because my interpretation of a vague rule is different than someone else's interpretation of a vague rule.

Obviously it's more "liberating" not to have the rule at all, but I was comparing two different scenarios, not all possible scenarios.

Also I think it's fair to say that tolerating harassment by having no rules against harassment isn't really "liberating" either. yes, you have fewer rules, but if the venue becomes toxic because only people who love harassing and abusing others are attracted to venues that don't shut down harassment and abuse then you lose that venue altogether.

Look at Twitter. Lots of people have left twitter b/c they can't stand to be on with all the harassment and abuse. People aren't more "liberated" because Twitter doesn't have consistent standards (or doesn't enforce them consistently, which amounts to the same thing). Facebook kills the accounts of women whose babies are snuggled up to their breasts, feeding, even though no **** is visible because that's supposedly "porn", but tolerates selfies that are obviously designed to titillate, not to mention ads from porn makers. It's not only ridiculous and terrible, but it leads to moms being accused, not in so many words, of ****, since the picture is banned on account of porn and it had a child in it.

No, I don't really trust tech companies to enforce vague standards and I am more comfortable expressing my opinions here when the rules are clear.

Anyway, I hope that clears up the earlier comment. I agree "liberated by strict rules" did come across wrong, so sorry about that.

Yes, I get it. You like it here because you're not tempted to expose your boobies. Did I understand correctly?

"Ultra;c-2387041" wrote:

"Ravens1113;c-2387040" wrote:

"Ultra;c-2387037" wrote:

"StarSon;c-2387034" wrote:
The name and shame rule is there to protect CG, not the cheater. If we can't name and shame, then we can't track CG not banning the cheaters.

I think its a good rule in the sense it protects people from being harassed from false allegations

There are people who claim xyz is cheating just because they think they set a good defense but its a beatable defense and are quick to harass that player without knowing they lost fair and square

Personally I would love a name and shame thread

Except in instances like this…

ok but that doesn't mean we will have lots of instances where a player hasn't cheated and being harassed and accused of cheating by a sore loser if naming and shaming was a lot

Those instances are immediately locked and removed from the board, so...

"Xyz player cheated his defense! I couldn't beat his team with all my GLs!"

"Enigmatic_Potato;c-2387135" wrote:

"Ultra;c-2387041" wrote:

"Ravens1113;c-2387040" wrote:

"Ultra;c-2387037" wrote:

"StarSon;c-2387034" wrote:
The name and shame rule is there to protect CG, not the cheater. If we can't name and shame, then we can't track CG not banning the cheaters.

I think its a good rule in the sense it protects people from being harassed from false allegations

There are people who claim xyz is cheating just because they think they set a good defense but its a beatable defense and are quick to harass that player without knowing they lost fair and square

Personally I would love a name and shame thread

Except in instances like this…

ok but that doesn't mean we will have lots of instances where a player hasn't cheated and being harassed and accused of cheating by a sore loser if naming and shaming was a lot

Those instances are immediately locked and removed from the board, so...

"Xyz player cheated his defense! I couldn't beat his team with all my GLs!"

Lol

Recent GAC results hit. That's their awesome NS team owning my Padme lol

There is enough ranting going on here about everything. Exposing cheaters shall be done through the official process (the fact it's not working does not justify we take the law in our own hands). Doing this in the forum only attracts rubbernecks, trolls, hypocrites and other scums and yields no substantial results.

"Antario;c-2387284" wrote:
There is enough ranting going on here about everything. Exposing cheaters shall be done through the official process (the fact it's not working does not justify we take the law in our own hands). Doing this in the forum only attracts rubbernecks, trolls, hypocrites and other scums and yields no substantial results.

"The law" cool story. Sorry you're mad about it.

@Ultra can you delete this thread then? It's been reported in every possible way and I'm over it.