MKerr, of Chainfist and BoLS fame, put up the following article, which is a response to Kirby's article, which is a response to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Premier of Iran, informing those of us in the Western World that, while the Russians power up a nuclear plant in his country, he has decided that Wound Allocation is a more important topic (perhaps just trying to divert attention?) and is in fact a rule that is so inherently wrong as to be virtually cheating. No, I'm not sure how you can get cheating from playing by the rules either. To be fair, I think this is more the failure of the English language than anything else, as there isn't really a word to define the intellectual dishonesty of talking advantage of loopholes in an unsportsmanlike fashion without resorting to such a loaded word. Some of us, in fact, are more than a little annoyed with the flagrant and widespread use of the word across the Blogosphere and forums, to the point where they attack the use of the term itself. Personally, I would like to see some sort of distinction drawn between "cheating" (inadvertently playing the game wrong in a way that benefits one player or the other unfairly - usually through ignorance or failure at Reading Comprehension) and "Cheating" (intentionally garnering some sort of tangible in-game advantage by bending to a ludicrous extent, or outright breaking, the rules of the game. An example would be moving from front of base to back of base, an especial bugbear of mine.) - Note how this follows my own attempts to foster a division between the use in common wargaming parlance of the terms "competitive" and "Competitive". The former is something that can be used to describe any lose attempt, desire or ambition to win on the part of one or more participants (eg, an event that includes games will ALWAYS be 'competitive' because the aim of the Tournament is to win.) The latter refers to the more specific times when the competitors are ACTIVELY engaged in the process of trying to win - rather than perhaps seeing it as an unfortunate consequence of playing a table-top wargame, the players craft lists, tactics and playstyles with the singular purpose of competing in and winning games of toy soldiers, and thus having fun, primarily through the satisfaction of overcoming a challenging opponent.
It shouldn't need to be pointed out, but if I get any BoLS migrants commenting as a result of this article it is perhaps inevitable that the cry of 'WAAC' will come up. While I plan to discuss later in the week (or the one after) topics that lend themselves better into a description of WAAC and the unpleasantness associated with this divisive phraseology, I cannot simply let the comment sit, either. Essentially, it suffices for now to say that being Competitive includes the desire to compete, to pit yourself against the best and to overcome them in a fair and even fight. Since the concepts aligned with the 'WAAC Gamers' the internet hates so much are not compatible with the idea of fair and honest competition, these players can never truly be referred to as "Competitive".
Well, that's the lengthy editorialising out of the way.
