Some of these players do make a substantial amount of their yearly incoming playing games.

Poker is a game. It is also a profession for some. Just because something is a game doesn't mean it's not an occupation.

But what if the line isn't clear. We'll come back to this in a second with your sports analogy....

Quote

A right is a right. If it can be taken away, by defination its not a right (slavery and force and such notwithstanding)

I won't argue semantics about this, but what about "Right to Free Speech?" That can be taken away. You can't ignore the conditions that take something away and claim that rights cannot be taken away.

But that's irrelevant, right or privilege means close enought to the same thing for the meat of your arguement.

No, sports have penalties because it is possible to make mistakes. No one is a machine, and cannot always prevent something from going wrong.

If a football player hits the punter, is it cheating? Was he able to stop? Did he try? Did the sun blind him so he couldn't tell if the ball had been released?

What about baseball? A pitcher hits a batter with the ball, cheating or mistake? Ban him from the game immediately? What about throwing a game, how do you prove that?

To characterize athletes as "do-anything-to-win" is a gross exaggeration.



You cannot penalize a player for their reason for playing a game. Neither can you put a judgement on what is the "proper" reason to play a game. Tell a baseball player he is wrong for making money at his job and see what kind of reaction you get.

Soccer.

Then baseball, football, hockey, basketball, poker, blackjack, craps, and so on. Counterstrike is hardly the most popular competative game.

Lol Counterstrike?

If you want to go by video games I WoW is far more popular, and you can win money in PvP tournaments.

I believe that the punishment should come only when there is evidence to support the crime, anything else is unjust and unfair.

Once there is evidence and guilt has been determined, then the punishment must fit the letter of the law. If that is being banned from vs. until the end of time, then that is the sentence that must be given. If it is to forfeit your winnings and be dropped from the tournament, then so be it.

The main point is until all the facts and evidence has been supplied none of us can pass judgement, we can only speculate and in the long run all that does is take Hans reputation and continue to run it through the mud. I do not know the person nor was I there, but I have the utmost confidence that UDE will be fair and just with their players. And I will wait til they make a decision and I will then base my opinion on that.

Now, as to my opinion on what crime cheating should carry is a permenant ban. Cause if it is an accident, then it is not cheating it is a mistake and should carry a different punishment.

This is my humble opinion on this matter. 'Nuff said. :p

If the person recognises who it is, and remembers that the person was caught cheating, he can ask a judge over just to make sure it's a fair game.

Odds are, for a WHILE, Hans will be watched like a hawk by judges, players, etc.

However, this means he will likely not be able to succesfully cheat again.

However, that won't do anything to stop people who haven't been caught yet from cheating ...

So if he didn't care about the money it would be perfectly fine that he cheats? Say WHAT?

So don't take advantage of situations that ARE legal? Or just don't take advantage of them if you aren't sure [i.e. ask first to make sure they are legal.]

But to say that you shouldn't take advantage of a situation that 'may be legal' is ludicrous. But to do so without CONFIRMING that it's legal is a bad idea of course.

So ... why ban him? The stigma alone would probably drive him away from playing anyway, so the ban wouldn't be necessary. And if he wants to play and prove that it was an isolated incident ... he'll put up with the speculation and prove it. And if he proves to still be a cheat ... then he gets banned.

You can't justify a ban as being 'for his own good' because of how people will treat him. Giving him a suspension as a cooling off period is one thing ... but lifetime ban so that he doesn't have to put up with people he's playing against thinking he's a cheater isn't really that nice.

If you are banning him it's because having him play is bad for the game ...

Actually, criminals lose some of their rights as punishment. They have the right to due process, etc ... however the right to vote, for example, is lost in some states if you are an ex-con. So rights can be taken away in a normal system as a punishment.

So you are saying there are punishments for excessive behaviour outside the rules. However, if it goes to far, they do have the ability to issue suspensions and lifetime bans.

Guess what? UDE has rules like that too. Cheating results in a DQ with forfeiture of prizes. In addition they CAN result in suspension and possibly a lifetime ban.

They have a system in place that is the equivalent to sports penalties. Minor infractions result in a warning. Accumulation of warnings or a greater infraction result in game and/or match losses. Heavy infractions can result in DQ [game loss and elimination from the tournament] with, or without a forfeiture of prizes. For repeated offences, or particularly serious offences, etc ... suspension and banning are possible.

Sports have penalties that fine players, cause them to be unable to play for periods of a game, for the rest of the game, for a number of games and possibly expulsion from the league.

First off: You're opinion on what is good for the game and not in terms of the money issue.

Playing against a cheater isn't fun, true. But at the same time, this requires one to assume that once someone has cheated ONCE, they will cheat forever and be unable to overcome their darker nature.

However, the reason that they crack down on cheating so much is BECAUSE there is money on the line. Not only is it an issue of people wanting the money so much that they are willing to cheat ... but it's also so MANY other people that want the money so much that they WILL NOT tolerate cheating and won't play if they don't think they can win if they aren't cheating.

Hans was caught, he didn't get away with it, he was punished heavily. UDE has shown a tough stance against cheating.

You feel that ANYONE caught cheating should receive an immediate lifetime ban.

Well, UDE doesn't feel that way, otherwise that would be the minimum penalty for cheating. The reserve the ability to find out whether to have a fair and unbiased view of the indiviual in question and determine how much punishment is needed.

The once a cheater, always a cheater rule would be great for the legal system ... life sentences for everyone!

And another point:

Yes, even with a ban he could play in non sanctioned events, so the only thing 'lost' is the money element.

Except of course, how 'fun' would it be for a competitive player to play against non-pros in a game with nothing on the line?

Competition is fun ... however a 'side game' is rarely competitive, ESPECIALLY when a player that's been banned from competitive play wouldn't have access to too many highly competitive players to play AGAINST in those side games.

I mean if a World Chess Master was banned from Championship play ... would he still go and play against old men in the park?

so do the prizes pass down or is it still uncertain because i got 76th (a really bad beat) and if the prizes do get passed down that would be infinite for me lol so if anyone knows anything let me know

Silverman, I believe the official verdict was that everyone moved up a spot -- you were the first person I thought of when I heard that :) I get an extra $10, you get an extra $600... hmmm...

first: playing for fun is stupid if you can playing for money. play for fun in your hobby league and let the other guys playing for the bucks....

sec.: hans is not that stupid that he tries to cheat that simple ! changing a card in the resource row is so stupid, and hans is to intelligent to do that.

Exclusion of the middle. Some people play for both fun & money. Yes, it is possible.

The thought crossed my mind. However, why did he not announce what he was doing? In VS, you ALWAYS announce every move you make. The only reason you would not announce it is if you were trying to cheat, or you thought the move was so obvious that you don't have to announce. I think it is plain to see this does not fit in the second case, so we have to assume the first.

edit - grammer