Between a weird experience I had while boardgaming this weekend, and some observations in a political essay a friend pointed me at, I've come to the conclusion that my Zero-Tolerance policy vs cheaters, and my willingness to assume total strangers are not cheating, are both something of a rarity.
The experience I mention was just a minor argument over semantics of lying vs bluffing. It was no big deal. But I was puzzled by certain reactions to it.
Specifically, someone I was playing with seemed adverse to the ideas that:
a) I'd only play certain games (in this case Shadows Over Camelot) with people whom I trusted completely.
b) I'd extend such total trust (in regards to gaming) to him just because he was a friend-of-a-friend.
c) That when playing such a game, I'd need no accountability. That is to say, I'm completely fine with bluffing rules that had no means of verification - I was willing to just take it on honor that no one would abuse such rules.
To me, the temporary rush of winning a game is worth significantly less than the long term value of my integrity and self-image. Not everyone feels that way. I'm a pretty good judge of character, and I can usually spot potential cheaters within the course of a game. So, I'd rather extend a person the benefit of a, b, and c than not do so. Assuming there's no money riding on the game, the most they can cheat me out of is a couple of hours of my time.
That said, when I have a hunch that someone is cheating, I'll call them out, and pretty much blacklist them. I've kicked people out of campaigns and casual gaming groups for being cheaters, even when I couldn't prove it. While it's hard to prove if someone did cheat in a specific instance, it's generally pretty easy to tell whether or not they have the sort of personality that's prone to cheating on a regular basis.
That said, money complicates this. People who would never cheat for ego will often do horrible things when $500 is on the line. You wouldn't last long judging Magic PTQs if you didn't know that.
4 comments:
I have had a bit of experience of this as a teacher, in which cheating becomes a high-stakes, drastic event. I make abundantly clear up front that I have a Zero-Tolerance policy for cheating in my classes, but I also build work into my course to reduce the value of cheating.
This latter is important to me because in academia, cheating is often done from desperation rather than laziness or villainous intent. As such, I do my best to reduce the situations in which cheating can pay off.
With regard to personal integrity, I'm always amused by "copyright day" in my new media class, in which we read segments of Larry Lessig's FREE CULTURE and talk about copyright law. I always start with a four question quiz to be answered by shows of hands:
1. Is copyright law okay the way it is now?
2. If not, should it be more or less strict?
3. Should artists be compensated for their intellectual property? How long? For life?
4. On a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being "Never" 10 being "Always," how often do you knowingly break copyright law?
The usual answers?
1. Yes (many), No (a few, see below)
2. More strict. (I'm always surprised by this)
3. Yes. For Life.
4. 8 or higher (50% of the class), 5 or higher (the rest minus one or two).
I don't know what these mean, but they fascinate me.
I particularly hate it when people who cheat are the same people who argue that a game system (like D20) should be "dangerous", and hate systems like Amber, where avoiding death is part of the GM's job description.
I cannot recall a single time when I have cheated (against a human--I cheat against the computer all the time). In fact, I would go so far as to say I often anti-cheat (possibly as much as 30% of the time), and throw the game.
Is that the same thing? If I told you I threw the game against you, would you feel cheated?
No, I wouldn't feel cheated at all.
All that time spent working game store retail, I had to throw games during demos quite often. A person doesn't have to win the demo to want to buy a game. But if you humiliate them, they'll not only pass on that game, they'll decline to demo anything else.
Wow, looking back on my last comment a year later, I realize how shifty and untrustworthy that statement made me seem. Like I was throwing games constantly in pursuit of sales.
It's not that at all. I was typically running a demo of something I'd played a lot of. Therefore, I was probably going to wipe the floor with a new player. I'd throw things (or just play mildly suboptimally) so that I could provide them with a fun experience (instead of rubbing their faces in the dirt).
I don't know, maybe that's still just as bad. Ultimately, the goal was sales, even if we were selling fun. Yuck.
I'm so glad I don't work retail any more.
Post a Comment