FUMBBL :: Online Blood Bowl League

Purplegoo

Joined: Mar 23, 2006

Posted: Nov 21, 2009 - 19:22

CircularLogic wrote:

Purplegoo wrote:

The Henry thing is TOTALLY different to the FUMBBL cheating ring.

If you can cheat on the field of play and the Ref doesn't notice, then fine. I'm amazed by the outcry over Henry, amazed.

I watch / play Rugby where the 'line' is awfully muddy, the Open Side is basically employed to cheat and not get caught, that's his entire job. See Fouling in BB. It's not allowed (hence the ref sends you off), but if you can get away with it, grand. Part of the game.

However, match-fixing, bloodgate, steroids? That's not in game cheating, that's out of game cheating; not within the field of play, not Cricket. That's where the FUMBBL cheating ring is - it's wrong.

I think the line is pretty clear. Henry, right side, FUMBBL lot, wrong.

That comparison is just wrong. The right comparion isn`t fouling and the Henry thing, but waiting on tabletop until your opponent uses the loo and then altering his team sheet or taking a player off the pitch and into the BH box. Because fouling is within the rules of the boardgame of Bloodbowl. Using your hand at soccer is not. Fouling in bloodbowl is like going for it with 6 more yards to go. If it works, you get an advantage (new first down), if it doesn`t your opponent gets an advantage). A risky move that is within the rules.

On the topic, as SillySod has pointed out, the poll is a little redundant, as it gives no realy info. What rather bothers me, reading your blog, that group the 'play to win' coaches with the cheaters AND you say that the characteristics 'sportsmanship' and 'honesty' are excluding the 'play to win' mentatlity.

I play to win. I will use - most of the time - my team in the most efficient manner I can find. So you, bobafettsmum, imply that I`m a cheater, I`m dishonest and a bad sport.

So I say: Screw you! You apparently don`t enjoy competition. Go and play Ludo. If that`s not bloody enough, just roll on the SI table anytime you take a piece.

Actually, you're dead wrong there (for the start of your post, at least), although I think it's probably a language barrier / misunderstanding thing. Fouling within the self-contained fluff of a game of BB is illegal, and hence the fictional ref takes action against the fictional cheating, or sometimes misses it. Exactly the same as the Henry handball within the confines of the game of Football. What you're doing is looking at it in a purely coaches playing a game and Fouling 'as an action is just the same as blocking' perspective, which I fully agree with. I'm not controlling Henry on a game of FIFA on an X-Box and instructing him to handball and hoping to get away with it, it's actually happening.

Savvy?

As for BB - I play to win, but I don't cheat to do so. The two don't need to overlap.

CircularLogic

Joined: Aug 22, 2003

Posted: Nov 21, 2009 - 20:00

Purplegoo:
That`s why I dicriminated between the boardgame of bloodbowl and the imaginary rugby-like contact sport bloodbowl. As for my bloodbowl is primary a boardgame, you can`t compare the fouling action with an action in real life sport that is clearly outside of the rules. I think we are on the same page just miscommunicating.

On the play to win thing - I don`t see these two overlapping either, but I hate to see others imply such an overlap.

Tobrane78

Joined: Jul 07, 2009

Posted: Nov 21, 2009 - 20:24

DragonsMaw wrote:

But I'm not even a life footballer, and my instinct when I'm goofing off with friends is to put my hands behind me on a play like that. Far better a goal kick than a booking (assuming your mates follow the rules that much). So... Even with a slightly milder viewpoint, I still feel Henry cheated. What I saw, and how it looked to me, was he did it on purpose. Willingly. That's cheating. So Henry was wrong.

Right...
I don't believe you go goofing off very often do you?
Whenever I personally play football, basketball, tennis, squash or whatever else you may think of, I use my arms for balance, like every other human being.
So having the arms in your back is a cool thing to say but very false and unrealistic. Especially at higher speed or sharp directional change like it happened there.
Now, you must have superman's eyes to actually see and claim that Henry did this on purpose, unless like 99.999% of everyone talking about this, you're just talking after viewing the replays and slow-motions. If you watch the action in full speed again, you'll notice that it doesn't take more than half a second to happen. Short time to put up a infamous plan no?
It was there, yes, but it's instinctive. Yes it serves Henry and France pretty nicely, still isn't a machiavelic plot to get Irland out.

Idolen

Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Posted: Nov 21, 2009 - 20:26

Didn't France win that game 2-0? And did Henry use his hand on both goals?
Spur of the moment reflex cheat like Henry did is not okay. The planned cheatingring in Fumbbl is far worse in my eyes. Henry didn't plan to do a Maradona hand of god type of goal before the game so its just manslaughter instead of murder in the first degree here... the victims might suffer a bit more in Henry case than in the Fumbbl case tho...

_________________
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d

bobafettsmum

Joined: May 20, 2008

Posted: Nov 21, 2009 - 21:57

CircularLogic wrote:

Purplegoo wrote:

The Henry thing is TOTALLY different to the FUMBBL cheating ring.

If you can cheat on the field of play and the Ref doesn't notice, then fine. I'm amazed by the outcry over Henry, amazed.

I watch / play Rugby where the 'line' is awfully muddy, the Open Side is basically employed to cheat and not get caught, that's his entire job. See Fouling in BB. It's not allowed (hence the ref sends you off), but if you can get away with it, grand. Part of the game.

However, match-fixing, bloodgate, steroids? That's not in game cheating, that's out of game cheating; not within the field of play, not Cricket. That's where the FUMBBL cheating ring is - it's wrong.

I think the line is pretty clear. Henry, right side, FUMBBL lot, wrong.

That comparison is just wrong. The right comparion isn`t fouling and the Henry thing, but waiting on tabletop until your opponent uses the loo and then altering his team sheet or taking a player off the pitch and into the BH box. Because fouling is within the rules of the boardgame of Bloodbowl. Using your hand at soccer is not. Fouling in bloodbowl is like going for it with 6 more yards to go. If it works, you get an advantage (new first down), if it doesn`t your opponent gets an advantage). A risky move that is within the rules.

On the topic, as SillySod has pointed out, the poll is a little redundant, as it gives no realy info. What rather bothers me, reading your blog, that group the 'play to win' coaches with the cheaters AND you say that the characteristics 'sportsmanship' and 'honesty' are excluding the 'play to win' mentatlity.

I play to win. I will use - most of the time - my team in the most efficient manner I can find. So you, bobafettsmum, imply that I`m a cheater, I`m dishonest and a bad sport.

So I say: Screw you! You apparently don`t enjoy competition. Go and play Ludo. If that`s not bloody enough, just roll on the SI table anytime you take a piece.

Circular. I did not mean to imply that there was something wrong with the mentality of play to win. What I was trying to say was what is more important, winning at any cost(or by any means) or sportsmanship. I very much doubt that anyone plays to lose. We all want to win. But what is more important? Winning or sportsmanship?

I dont think its necesary to abuse me even if I had meant what you thought I meant.

_________________
Beating me at Bloodbowl is not an achievement.
Losing to me at Bloodbowl means you really suck!
Wink

krytie

Joined: Aug 16, 2007

Posted: Nov 21, 2009 - 22:44

Tobrane78 wrote:

I've never ever, in any sport, whatever the importance of the match, seen a player go see the ref and tell the guy: "I committed a foul". So either ALL sportsmen are cheaters or Henry isn't one.

I guess you haven't watched much Snooker then? Players will assist the ref all the time by pointing out that they accidently touched a ball.

Having said that, i do think the onus is on the ref to call a foul rather than the player to call a halt himself - otherwise there would BE no referees in professional sport. Razz

_________________
There are three types of people in this world -- those who can count and those who cannot!

CircularLogic

Joined: Aug 22, 2003

Posted: Nov 21, 2009 - 22:45

bobafettsmum wrote:

But what is more important? Winning or sportsmanship?

That`s not a choice, because sportsmanship and winning aren`t exclusive, even though you seem to believe it. The moment I step outside the rules, a win isn`t a win anymore. Thus you can only win without cheating.

I actually think it is part of sportsmanship (a really poorly defined term), that everyone goes for the win at the best of his abilities within the rules of the competition. It`s really bothering me, that some people belive sportsmanship and a competitve attitude are mutually exclusive though I appears to me as a
'I think I`m really good but others beat me, so they must use some cheap trick' kind of attitude.

You clearly express in your blog, that you see most of the coaches here in the 'play to in camp' while the minority of the coaches are believing:

bobafettsmum`s blog wrote:

that it was the taking part that counted. Sportsmanship and honesty were what counted.

Maybe you didn`t see the range of your implications, but I don`t see you clarifying that you don`t want to throw the competitive crowd into one pot with the cheaters.

Last edited by CircularLogic on %b %22, %2009 - %11:%Nov; edited 1 time in total

SillySod

Joined: Oct 10, 2006

Posted: Nov 21, 2009 - 22:59

CircularLogic wrote:

bobafettsmum wrote:

But what is more important? Winning or sportsmanship?

That`s not a choice, because sportsmanship and winning aren`t exclusive, even though you seem to believe it.

Hes not saying that they are exclusive.

Hes asking which is more important - clearly your answer is sportsmanship. The reason its clear is that you choose to stick to the rules of the game instead of cheating to give you a (slightly) better chance to win. If winning was more important then you would do anything that was more likely to make you win.

_________________
Putting the "eh?" back into Sexeh.

"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield. There are those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced."

Symmetrical

Joined: Jan 15, 2005

Posted: Nov 21, 2009 - 23:25

http://www.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/329428.html

Interesting article on the differences between passive & active cheating in cricket.

_________________
The people's champion.

Dalfort

Joined: Jun 23, 2008

Posted: Nov 21, 2009 - 23:50

Quote:

I very much doubt that anyone plays to lose....

my record implies i do Sad

and i confess, i recently used the OFAB bug to score against an opponent that usually easily beats me.... sorry Shades.....

SillySod

Joined: Oct 10, 2006

Posted: Nov 22, 2009 - 01:07

The "OFAB bug" is legal. Feel free to use and abuse.

_________________
Putting the "eh?" back into Sexeh.

"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield. There are those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced."

Wreckage

Joined: Aug 15, 2004

Posted: Nov 22, 2009 - 02:39

bobafettsmum wrote:

Is it wrong to cheat?

You're a pretty black n'white kinda guy, aren't you?

EDIT: maybe I should add something constructive:
If you break a rule to get an advantage in the game, you are cheating.
It is wrong to break a rule of the game.

If you do something allowed within the rules to get advantage, that is smart.

If there is a soft rule that is not explicitly stated or explained the smart thing is to get as much benefit of it as you can. If some administrative then decides the action would be illegal, it would make you an exploiter but not a cheater. A soft rule forces people to estimate the degree to wich they are allowed to play effective without breaking the rules. This creates different zones of closure to a possible rules breaking and different conditions under wich people have to play. Equal matchups aren't possible anymore. This however is not a consequence of the players actions but simply of a unspecified rule.
A soft rule is in fact not really a rule but a mere excuse for an authority to do injustice.

Examples for soft rules are:
You are only allowed to do what's right.
You are only allowed to do what the aministration says it is right.
You are only allowed to do what I say is right.
An action is ok to do if I say so.
You are only allowed to conceed if you have an ingame reason unless it is an ingame reason we do not approve of.
If you play within all other rules, you not allowed to play games in your own favor to an extend we do not approve of

Last edited by Wreckage on %b %22, %2009 - %03:%Nov; edited 4 times in total

CorporateSlave3

Joined: Feb 07, 2004

Posted: Nov 22, 2009 - 02:44

I think Cheating are delicious, but I don't like the way eating them turns my fingers orange.

_________________
***Did you know? 42.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot?

Kenty

Joined: Dec 24, 2003

Posted: Nov 22, 2009 - 02:52

I'm a Patriots fan, nuff said.

asharak

Joined: Nov 27, 2007

Posted: Nov 22, 2009 - 04:10

Idolen wrote:

Didn't France win that game 2-0? And did Henry use his hand on both goals?
Spur of the moment reflex cheat like Henry did is not okay. The planned cheatingring in Fumbbl is far worse in my eyes. Henry didn't plan to do a Maradona hand of god type of goal before the game so its just manslaughter instead of murder in the first degree here... the victims might suffer a bit more in Henry case than in the Fumbbl case tho...

Errr.
No.
It was 0-1 full time, 1-1 on aggregate.
In extra time Henry handled the ball (as said don't judge on slow motion replay, in full speed it really is a reaction not a planned move.) and then france scored. Had they not done so it'd have gone to pens at the end of extra time.

Henry himself said in post-match that yes he handled it. He also said it was unfair on Ireland and a replay would be best. The point? Its not his decision. Never was. The person who screwed up was the ref.

Planned cheating is a VERY different thing. I really don't understand how people can get any satisfaction from planning to cheat and winning. You've not beaten someone fairly so where is the lure? However many people do it so I guess some folks care more about the result than anything else.

I remember seeing a game a while ago, I forget who. A striker took a shot that flew straight at a defenders face from close range. The defender put his hands in front of his face. Red card & penalty followed. Was he cheating? Are you saying you'd be able to stop yourself doing it?

Oh aye, and to whoever said they play with their hands behind their back... you really don't play many sports do you? Thats really quite funny Smile

PS I was watching it and cheering Ireland - I'm not happy they're out but as already mentioned some decisions have questionably gone their way in the past in this campaign. Sometimes you get luckier than others. I don't see why loads of people think stringing Henry up helps anything.