Is Gaming Cheating?

[ima45dv8]

Seems from the responses that more than a few people missed the wording in #3. It asked if you "may" engage outside of a fault line; not whether it is advisable in all instances. The obvious answer is Yes, you may.

Also, a shooter that views snow fence or other porous vision barriers as soft cover (without it being stated in the WSB) and then engages targets through it would see a pretty poor score if the RO is on the ball. Flex's rule cite was spot-on.

[blackdragon]

OK,

So I shoot a COF. I get finished. The RO says I shot the " Mesh". Lets say Two targets. I see 12 shots not taped in the mesh. I am spending the $$$ for the arbitration.

Ivan

[ima45dv8]

And you'd be right to do so. If soft materials are going to be used as hard cover, the stage crew has to be very diligent about pasting and scoring every hit on the soft cover after every shooter.

And that's why I hate using plastic barrels as hard cover vision barriers. The RO says, "You hit the barrel. That's a Mike." I point at the myriad array of holes along the edge and say, "Yeah? Which one is mine?"

All this doesn't change the fact that unless stated in the Written Stage Briefing, all props/vision barriers/etc. are considered hard cover.

[SmittyFL]

OK,

So I shoot a COF. I get finished. The RO says I shot the " Mesh". Lets say Two targets. I see 12 shots not taped in the mesh. I am spending the $$$ for the arbitration.

Ivan

Even if you know it went through the hard cover?

The RO has been working the stage all day....or all weekend. If it is a half decent RO He/She knows where targets are visible from and whether or not you engaged it through the hard cover.

[XRe]

Besides, the mesh is half air, isn't it???

[Lee Bell]

OK, So I shoot a COF. I get finished. The RO says I shot the " Mesh". Lets say Two targets. I see 12 shots not taped in the mesh. I am spending the $$$ for the arbitration.

Even if you know it went through the hard cover? The RO has been working the stage all day....or all weekend. If it is a half decent RO He/She knows where targets are visible from and whether or not you engaged it through the hard cover.

I took the names off to protect the guilty, or not so guilty, well, to keep it from becoming personal. I think this is a good example of the kind of thing that builds resentment to those perceived as extreme gamers. I hate having to use the term "extreme," but that's what we're talking about, those that go beyond what others thing of as "fair."

A competitor that shots through the mesh that he should have known was hard cover, knows he did it, who would protest the RO's recognition that he had, isn't being what I'd call honest, let alone ethical. Unsportsmanlike and justification for a DQ, I don't know. Ask me again when I'm a qualified RO.

Lee

[Lee Bell]

Shot fun stages with the club last night and all of this talk of gaming worked on me . . . a lot. Two things happened that reminded me of these discussions.

The club was using fencing with relatively large gaps between boards for hard cover. The course description said "shoot as targets become visable." One of the targets was directly behind an opening in the "hard cover" fencing. It begged to be shot through that hole. It would have been easy to have mistakenly done so. I didn't, and as far as I know, nobody else did either, but damn, it was tempting.

On another stange, there was some poor construction. There were four barrels with two targets behind and between them. There was a not shoot attached to one of the barrels to keep shooters from shooting targets behind the port that preceeded the barrels in the stage. I didn't look closely, but it was probably a safety issue, but that's not the point. When they put the no shoot up, they left the back of it visible from the preceeding port. The back was the buff color of all other targets. I kept looking at the stage description and the stage, trying to figure out why that target was not on the diagram. Apparently, I was the only one that saw the extra target. When I asked why it was not on the diagram, the RO checked to see what I was talking about and, for the first time, realized what had happened. He told me it was the back of a no shoot, but did not do anything to make it apparent that it was not a legitimate target. I'm sure many can imagine how hard it was for me, particularly after this discussion, not to shoot that target and insist that the points be added to my score . . . but I didn't.

You guys are a bad influence on me. Keep up the good work.

Lee

[sslav]

OK,

So I shoot a COF. I get finished. The RO says I shot the " Mesh". Lets say Two targets. I see 12 shots not taped in the mesh. I am spending the $$$ for the arbitration.

Ivan

So to get it straight - you are shooting at a target that is fully consealed by the mesh. You know you shot through the mesh. RO and possibly others saw you shoot through the mesh. When called on it you say in effect "prove it" when you well know that you did it?

Thats not gaming - thats cheating pure and simple.

[XRe]

Thats not gaming - thats cheating pure and simple.

Agreed - comitting a penalizable act, and then attempting to get out of it in such fashion is not gaming (where one defines "gaming" as playing within the full scope of the rules). This is an act of willful cheating. An honorable sportsman does not do such things....

[LPatterson]

[devil's advocate]

I'm speeding down the highway 100 MPH & a cop stops me for speeding & I say no I wasn't going that fast & I would like to see the proof. If it is not on his/her radar then it is not provable in a court of law. Courts (at least in Montana) are no longer accepting a speedometer reading. Or a radar reading more than 6 months after last calibration.

So if I shoot thru the fence & you can't prove it to the RM, then I am not guilty. If you don't want me to shoot thru something then make it solid not imaginary OR put it in the written stage briefing. I was at a match where the shooter intentionally ran over the RO so he could get a reshoot & won on arbitration.

[devil's advocate off]

I used to think there was intent until I started working with LE & the court system then I had to learn to think all over again.

[Nik Habicht]

The club was using fencing with relatively large gaps between boards for hard cover. The course description said "shoot as targets become visable." One of the targets was directly behind an opening in the "hard cover" fencing. It begged to be shot through that hole.

On another stage, there was some poor construction. There were four barrels with two targets behind and between them. There was a not shoot attached to one of the barrels to keep shooters from shooting targets behind the port that preceeded the barrels in the stage. I didn't look closely, but it was probably a safety issue, but that's not the point. When they put the no shoot up, they left the back of it visible from the preceeding port. The back was the buff color of all other targets. I kept looking at the stage description and the stage, trying to figure out why that target was not on the diagram.

Both of those are course construction problems ---- we would have used extra no-shoots to solve both of those. Fencing sometimes has a slat break off, we cover the resulting gap with a no-shoot. We also close ports with no-shoots if we need another solid wall, rather than one with a port.....

We've also instituted a loose policy at my club that the MD and the AMD both look at each stage ---- just to find these potential problems before we start. It only takes about ten minutes.....

[XRe]

So if I shoot thru the fence & you can't prove it to the RM, then I am not guilty.

Proof is not required. This is not "The Real World ". You do not have representation in front of a jury or a judge. The RO's word is final as far as what happened. If he saw you shoot through the snow fence, it doesn't matter if you claim you did or you didn't. He doesn't have to show you the holes you put in the fence, nor does he have to have pasted any other holes or clips in the fence to be able to ascertain that you shot through the fence. When you go to arbitration, the RO says "The shooter shot through the snow fence at T1-2". The arb committee says, "Ok, then. Thanks for your $100. Don't shoot through hardcover again...".

If you don't want me to shoot thru something then make it solid not imaginary OR put it in the written stage briefing.

In terms of the snow fence example, it doesn't have to state it in the WSB, because the rules already cover it. Snow fence is hardcover (and therefore "impenetrable" for the purposes of the rules), unless declared in the WSB as softcover.

I was at a match where the shooter intentionally ran over the RO so he could get a reshoot & won on arbitration.

[devil's advocate off]

Now you're talking about intent, ie "reading the shooter's mind", instead of factual "shooter did/did not perform some action". Unless you see a shooter turn around and run at the RO, including following the RO's dodges, etc, you would have a very hard time proving what the shooter intended to do.... That's quite a different endeavor from "shooter did/did-not shoot through the snow fence" - doesn't matter whether he intended to do it or not, he either did it, or he didn't.

I used to think there was intent until I started working with LE & the court system then I had to learn to think all over again.

A common mistake is to confuse the workings of the rules of USPSA/IPSC with a real-world court system. The two are separate and unique from one another. You do not have the same rights under the USPSA/IPSC rules that you might in the justice system...

[ima45dv8]

I was at a match where the shooter intentionally ran over the RO so he could get a reshoot & won on arbitration.

That was a sad display of childishness, wasn't it? I would love to have seen/heard the "evidence" offered to the Arb committee.

From the current, 2004 version of the rulebook:

"8.6.3 In the event that inadvertent contact from the Range Officer or another external influence has interfered with the competitor during a course of fire, the Range Officer may offer the competitor a reshoot of the course of fire. The competitor must accept or decline the offer prior to seeing either the time or the score from the initial attempt. However, in the event that the competitor commits a safety infraction during any such interference, the provisions of Section 10.3 may still apply."

This part is key: "....the Range Officer may offer the competitor a reshoot....". Nothing says he has to give a reshoot if he believes the contact to be deliberate. There's also nothing that says if someone tries to bowl me over that I can bowl back.

[SmittyFL]

OK, So I shoot a COF. I get finished. The RO says I shot the " Mesh". Lets say Two targets. I see 12 shots not taped in the mesh. I am spending the $$$ for the arbitration.

Even if you know it went through the hard cover? The RO has been working the stage all day....or all weekend. If it is a half decent RO He/She knows where targets are visible from and whether or not you engaged it through the hard cover.

I took the names off to protect the guilty, or not so guilty, well, to keep it from becoming personal. I think this is a good example of the kind of thing that builds resentment to those perceived as extreme gamers. I hate having to use the term "extreme," but that's what we're talking about, those that go beyond what others thing of as "fair."

A competitor that shots through the mesh that he should have known was hard cover, knows he did it, who would protest the RO's recognition that he had, isn't being what I'd call honest, let alone ethical. Unsportsmanlike and justification for a DQ, I don't know. Ask me again when I'm a qualified RO.

Lee

You don't have to remove the names. It's no big deal. Dave is right in his later post; it is on the RO to score the stage. Just the same if a target isn't pasted. If the RO can properly score the stage he does so, if not it's a reshoot. Same deal with the mesh; if the RO knows you shot through it, it's a mike. If you have a problem with that you can arb it; if the committee asks the RO he will say yes the competitor shot through the hard cover. The shooter will either be ordered to reshoot or the stage will stand as scored.

It's nothing personal, both the RO and shooter knows what happened. Winners don't do shit like that anyway, but it's not up to the RO to pass judgement. He/She only scores the stage.

If you're speeding, you're speeding and you know you run the risk of being issued a ticket. So what? You aren't sentenced to burn in hell, you gotta pay a box or two worth of bullets. Why be a dick about it? I'm on the road all the time and I'm usually speeding. I know every few years I'm going to get caught. With all the people on the road speeding and the few officers to catch them it ain't going to be that often. But when it happens it happens.

Maybe I was wrong, maybe we do need all these stupid new rules.

Edited February 9, 2007 by SmittyFL

[ima45dv8]

Well said, Shannon.

Nut up, own up, move on.

[Azone41]

I am a GAMER! Ask anybody that knows me. But I would not shoot through snow fence and expect to not get hammered for it. Gaming is looking for a way to shoot a stage that is completly within the rules that will help you shave off that little bit of time. On a slow month I design and set 12 stages a month at our club and sometimes I leave a hole in the stage that someone finds ( usually Scorch from Doubletap) thats great and I don't get offended. There are many people that don't like the snow fence walls but they are cheap and easy to move around. We have 30 wooden walls made out of plywood and 2x4s that I can't move by myself. If that was all we had to use then walls wouldn't get put up to often during a match because I do most of the setup by myself. I use the heck out of our snow fence walls because I can carry them around.

Gaming is ok. But if you do something that you know is wrong and then try to get away with it thats Cheating plain and simple.

[LPatterson]

So if I shoot thru the fence & you can't prove it to the RM, then I am not guilty.

Proof is not required. This is not "The Real World ". You do not have representation in front of a jury or a judge. The RO's word is final as far as what happened. If he saw you shoot through the snow fence, it doesn't matter if you claim you did or you didn't. He doesn't have to show you the holes you put in the fence, nor does he have to have pasted any other holes or clips in the fence to be able to ascertain that you shot through the fence. When you go to arbitration, the RO says "The shooter shot through the snow fence at T1-2". The arb committee says, "Ok, then. Thanks for your $100. Don't shoot through hardcover again...".

Proof is required to the Range Master for scoring disputes. If you break the 180 I don't have to prove that or a foot fault. If as an RO I am watching the gun as I should be then I am watching for safety violations not where the shooter is aiming. So in the Arb case I would need to say that "From the location the shooter was standing, the only way he could have made the hits in the target was to shoot through the mesh and he made no makeup shots". Arb asks "was the mesh designated as hard cover"? "NO" Reshoot. The arb committe is made up of fellow shooters who may be bigger gamers than the appellant.

If you don't want me to shoot thru something then make it solid not imaginary OR put it in the written stage briefing.

In terms of the snow fence example, it doesn't have to state it in the WSB, because the rules already cover it. Snow fence is hardcover (and therefore "impenetrable" for the purposes of the rules), unless declared in the WSB as softcover.

4.1.4.1 "Cover provided to hide all or a portion of a target will be considered hard cover. When possible hard cover should not be simulated but constructed using impentrable materials."

4.1.4.2 "Cover provided merely to obscure the view of targets is considered soft cover. Shots which have passed through soft cover and which strike a scoring target will score."

9.1.6 Covers walls, barriers & vision screens.

I submitt that a mesh fence is not a vision screen since it is readily seen through. The purpose of a mesh fence is to cause wind turbulence causing a build up of snow behind it. There is black material with holes the size of window screen that would do the same job be readily visible if it were shot thru.

Again if you don't want me to shoot thru soft cover then designate it hard cover.

I was at a match where the shooter intentionally ran over the RO so he could get a reshoot & won on arbitration.

[devil's advocate off]

Now you're talking about intent, ie "reading the shooter's mind", instead of factual "shooter did/did not perform some action". Unless you see a shooter turn around and run at the RO, including following the RO's dodges, etc, you would have a very hard time proving what the shooter intended to do.... That's quite a different endeavor from "shooter did/did-not shoot through the snow fence" - doesn't matter whether he intended to do it or not, he either did it, or he didn't.

Sorry it was not "reading the shooter's mind" it was the shooter running at the RO and when the RO tried to dogde continued and ran into him. It was the 2003 Nationals and the shooter had several Mikes & NS's. I read the arb notice & result and the original RO refused to RO the shooter for the reshoot.

I used to think there was intent until I started working with LE & the court system then I had to learn to think all over again.

A common mistake is to confuse the workings of the rules of USPSA/IPSC with a real-world court system. The two are separate and unique from one another. You do not have the same rights under the USPSA/IPSC rules that you might in the justice system...

Actually I have more rights under USPSA because for only $100 I can get my case heard by several fellow shooters instead of 12 people who might not like me because of my creed, color, attitude or that I live & breath guns.

[SA Friday]

The person on the clip-board=witness. End of arb. (Not to mention everyone else saying that the person did it...)

Integrity is important. Enough so you might be asked to leave if you did something like that. Why even risk it?

Why would others want to shoot with a person who would be willing to do something like that and then arb it?

[Lee Bell]

I don't this discussion is as much about what can be proved as what is ethical. Cheating that can not be proved, may not change the outcome at all, but it's still cheating.

Lee

[Flexmoney]

Cheaters suck.

Gamers rule.

Our sport has lots of gamers...not so many cheaters.

Lets move on.

[vluc]

Cheaters suck.

Gamers rule.

I can see that on shirts this coming season....

[Singlestack]

Cheaters suck.

Gamers rule.

I can see that on shirts this coming season....

I want one.

[LittlePistol]

Cheaters suck.

Gamers rule.

I can see that on shirts this coming season....

I want one.

Me too!!!

[LittlePistol]

Being that I am new to the sport (and these "free-style-type" discussions) I have to pose the question...

1. What defines the line between "gamer" and "cheater," is it intent, integrity or something totally different?

Disclaimer: The following is just my $0.02 - feel free to take it, leave it or tell me to hush-up!

Judging by the tone of many discussions this "line" seems to be very thin.

I am involved in LE, and Officer Discretion is very much a part of the job. Correct me if that does not correlate with "Competitor's Discretion."

Doesn't every competitor have the freedom to choose thier actions and make a conscience decision as to whether or not those actions are "ethical and/or legal?"

[Flexmoney]

The line isn't all that thin, and our game and rule book are pretty mature....most things have been seen and addressed.

USPSA (IPSC) has been, and will be, a freestyle shooting sport. That is what drives us to come out and play. Other games offer "intent"...and that is good for many too.