Daegun

What I learned in boating school today is:
 
Rules are probably only made by salty children who throw their controllers when they lose. People who follow the terms they agreed to follow are conformists. Cheats aren't bad, they're fun! Rules only exist because of greed. People who like to take games seriously are greedy. Even if it's your tournament that you're hosting, you shouldn't have the right to make rules. Because a third party company introduces a feature, it should automatically be legal, no matter what, even though that third party has nothing to do with the tournament holders or game developers. You should have the right to disobey rules/laws you signed an agreement to follow. In game controller configuration menus and third party software are the same thing. Because some tournaments do or allow something, they all should. (Even though that conflicts with the conformist complaints.) Disallowing cheats is hand holding. Being a professional gamer means you most likely only care about the money. Don't complain about cheats, just get good. If you say that macros/turbos are cheats, then you just suck. Competitive players don't like fun. If you disagree with some of these points then you're likely a salty child. Did I miss any?

Alright, let's go through this step by step since that's a nice big wall of text. This is gonna be a long one so buckle gently.
 
 
You were the first to compare them. The closest anyone came to saying that was saying that they're both cheating. Ben made this exasperated statement in response to a handwave by you to ignore another post.
No one said that they were comparable but you. You're also the only person in this thread to mention adhd medications.
 
 
OP never actually said the second part, he only said why it was an unfair advantage.
 
Razer isn't the one holding the tournament or even a sponsor, so the fact that it was Razer that made the software and not some random person has no meaning. There's no laws against the blood doping that cyclists used to do, yet that's something that's still banned from the Tour de France and any other major cycling competition and will see you disqualified and barred from any future race.
 
This does put a player at a disadvantage, whether you agree or not. This allows a player to do something inhumanely fast, something that is physically impossible for another player unless they do the same thing. If you were to match up players of equal skill level but allow one to use macros and forbid the other, the one with macros would be more likely to win simply because of the macros, and that is an advantage.
 
The tournament holder's word isn't final because they're the tournament holder and they say so, it's final because the players participating agreed to their terms in order to play, one of them being rules that would result in disqualification if broken. Again, whether you agree or not doesn't matter, this is a contract they signed to participate and they broke it knowing full well what the penalties could be.
 
 
That is true, if it was a competition of the best macros rather than the best players it would only appeal to an even more niche audience than the current one, but that doesn't mean it's greed. You can be successful and earn money without being greedy, and as far as I know they haven't done anything excessive enough to qualify as greedy.
 
I can't solve your feelings on a subject for you, but not caring about money or anything but fun doesn't legitimize rule breaking in a tournament that the players have agreed to these rules.
 
 
Again, not a single person has said they're the same but you. The closest anyone has come to saying that any of these things are the same is in saying that they're all cheating.
 
How easily available it is to use or obtain is completely irrelevant, nor is it the same as the dev putting the option in. There are many different programs that don't modify game files or interfere with other players but give the player an advantage, all of which are banned from tournaments regardless of availability.
 
It's certainly the players fault when it's something that is explicitly stated is against the rules. It is entirely their fault, either for ignoring them or not reading them and knowing what they were. If a tournament allowed both 144hz and 60hz monitors and you chose to use a 60hz one, then you're right, but this comparison doesn't fit what happened here and is misleading. A proper comparison would be that a tournament only allowed 60hz monitors and someone was caught using a 144hz monitor and disqualified for it. They *were* cheating here, that isn't something that's up for debate.
 
 
Please, show us any large tournament that allows them. I believe this is the third time now that you've made this claim without any evidence to support it, meanwhile those on the other side of this argument have provided links to the official sites for multiple that have expressly said they're banned. It's on you to provide evidence on this claim, not on others to disprove something you've claimed without a single scrap of evidence to back it up.
 
When you talk about hundreds of thousands of tournaments, you seem to be talking about even the little unofficial ones high schools or workplaces will have, that's the only way to reach that high of a number. Of course these little ones might not have rules against them, they likely aren't serious tournaments, only something for fun between friends and coworkers. When we talk about tournaments, we're talking about the large formal tournamnets that actually have significant prizes and draw in spectators beyond the families and friends of the participants, trying to equate these smaller, informal tournaments to them is, again, misleading.
 
 
 
Almost everything you've said so far has been misleading, a strawman, or blatantly misrepresenting another's words. None of your arguments hold any water under the smallest bit of scrutiny.

Alright, let's go through this step by step since that's a nice big wall of text. This is gonna be a long one so buckle gently.
 
 
You were the first to compare them. The closest anyone came to saying that was saying that they're both cheating. Ben made this exasperated statement in response to a handwave by you to ignore another post.
No one said that they were comparable but you. You're also the only person in this thread to mention adhd medications.
 
 
OP never actually said the second part, he only said why it was an unfair advantage.
 
Razer isn't the one holding the tournament or even a sponsor, so the fact that it was Razer that made the software and not some random person has no meaning. There's no laws against the blood doping that cyclists used to do, yet that's something that's still banned from the Tour de France and any other major cycling competition and will see you disqualified and barred from any future race.
 
This does put a player at a disadvantage, whether you agree or not. This allows a player to do something inhumanely fast, something that is physically impossible for another player unless they do the same thing. If you were to match up players of equal skill level but allow one to use macros and forbid the other, the one with macros would be more likely to win simply because of the macros, and that is an advantage.
 
The tournament holder's word isn't final because they're the tournament holder and they say so, it's final because the players participating agreed to their terms in order to play, one of them being rules that would result in disqualification if broken. Again, whether you agree or not doesn't matter, this is a contract they signed to participate and they broke it knowing full well what the penalties could be.
 
 
That is true, if it was a competition of the best macros rather than the best players it would only appeal to an even more niche audience than the current one, but that doesn't mean it's greed. You can be successful and earn money without being greedy, and as far as I know they haven't done anything excessive enough to qualify as greedy.
 
I can't solve your feelings on a subject for you, but not caring about money or anything but fun doesn't legitimize rule breaking in a tournament that the players have agreed to these rules.
 
 
Again, not a single person has said they're the same but you. The closest anyone has come to saying that any of these things are the same is in saying that they're all cheating.
 
How easily available it is to use or obtain is completely irrelevant, nor is it the same as the dev putting the option in. There are many different programs that don't modify game files or interfere with other players but give the player an advantage, all of which are banned from tournaments regardless of availability.
 
It's certainly the players fault when it's something that is explicitly stated is against the rules. It is entirely their fault, either for ignoring them or not reading them and knowing what they were. If a tournament allowed both 144hz and 60hz monitors and you chose to use a 60hz one, then you're right, but this comparison doesn't fit what happened here and is misleading. A proper comparison would be that a tournament only allowed 60hz monitors and someone was caught using a 144hz monitor and disqualified for it. They *were* cheating here, that isn't something that's up for debate.
 
 
Please, show us any large tournament that allows them. I believe this is the third time now that you've made this claim without any evidence to support it, meanwhile those on the other side of this argument have provided links to the official sites for multiple that have expressly said they're banned. It's on you to provide evidence on this claim, not on others to disprove something you've claimed without a single scrap of evidence to back it up.
 
When you talk about hundreds of thousands of tournaments, you seem to be talking about even the little unofficial ones high schools or workplaces will have, that's the only way to reach that high of a number. Of course these little ones might not have rules against them, they likely aren't serious tournaments, only something for fun between friends and coworkers. When we talk about tournaments, we're talking about the large formal tournamnets that actually have significant prizes and draw in spectators beyond the families and friends of the participants, trying to equate these smaller, informal tournaments to them is, again, misleading.
 
 
 
Almost everything you've said so far has been misleading, a strawman, or blatantly misrepresenting another's words. None of your arguments hold any water under the smallest bit of scrutiny.

Alright, let's go through this step by step since that's a nice big wall of text. This is gonna be a long one so buckle gently.
 
 
You were the first to compare them. The closest anyone came to saying that was saying that they're both cheating. Ben made this exasperated statement in response to a handwave by you to ignore another post.
No one said that they were comparable but you. You're also the only person in this thread to mention adhd medications.
 
 
OP never actually said the second part, he only said why it was an unfair advantage.
 
Razer isn't the one holding the tournament or even a sponsor, so the fact that it was Razer that made the software and not some random person has no meaning. There's no laws against the blood doping that cyclists used to do, yet that's something that's still banned from the Tour de France and any other major cycling competition and will see you disqualified and barred from any future race.
 
This does put a player at a disadvantage, whether you agree or not. This allows a player to do something inhumanely fast, something that is physically impossible for another player unless they do the same thing. If you were to match up players of equal skill level but allow one to use macros and forbid the other, the one with macros would be more likely to win simply because of the macros, and that is an advantage.
 
The tournament holder's word isn't final because they're the tournament holder and they say so, it's final because the players participating agreed to their terms in order to play, one of them being rules that would result in disqualification if broken. Again, whether you agree or not doesn't matter, this is a contract they signed to participate and they broke it knowing full well what the penalties could be.
 
 
That is true, if it was a competition of the best macros rather than the best players it would only appeal to an even more niche audience than the current one, but that doesn't mean it's greed. You can be successful and earn money without being greedy, and as far as I know they haven't done anything excessive enough to qualify as greedy.
 
I can't solve your feelings on a subject for you, but not caring about money or anything but fun doesn't legitimize rule breaking in a tournament that the players have agreed to these rules.
 
 
Again, not a single person has said they're the same but you. The closest anyone has come to saying that any of these things are the same is in saying that they're all cheating.
 
How easily available it is to use or obtain is completely irrelevant, nor is it the same as the dev putting the option in. There are many different programs that don't modify game files or interfere with other players but give the player an advantage, all of which are banned from tournaments regardless of availability.
 
It's certainly the players fault when it's something that is explicitly stated is against the rules. It is entirely their fault, either for ignoring them or not reading them and knowing what they were. If a tournament allowed both 144hz and 60hz monitors and you chose to use a 60hz one, then you're right, but this comparison doesn't fit what happened here and is misleading. A proper comparison would be that a tournament only allowed 60hz monitors and someone was caught using a 144hz monitor and disqualified for it. They *were* cheating here, that isn't something that's up for debate.
 
 
Please, show us any large tournament that allows them. I believe this is the third time now that you've made this claim without any evidence to support it, meanwhile those on the other side of this argument have provided links to the official sites for multiple that have expressly said they're banned. It's on you to provide evidence on this claim, not on others to disprove something you've claimed without a single scrap of evidence to back it up.
 
When you talk about hundreds of thousands of tournaments, you seem to be talking about even the little unofficial ones high schools or workplaces will have, that's the only way to reach that high of a number. Of course these little ones might not have rules against them, they likely aren't serious tournaments, only something for fun between friends and coworkers. When we talk about tournaments, we're talking about the large formal tournamnets that actually have significant prizes and draw in spectators beyond the families and friends of the participants, trying to equate these smaller, informal tournaments to them is, again, misleading.
 
 
 
Almost everything you've said so far has been misleading, a strawman, or blatantly misrepresenting another's words. None of your arguments hold any water under the smallest bit of scrutiny.

Alright, let's go through this step by step since that's a nice big wall of text. This is gonna be a long one so buckle gently.
 
 
You were the first to compare them. The closest anyone came to saying that was saying that they're both cheating. Ben made this exasperated statement in response to a handwave by you to ignore another post.
No one said that they were comparable but you. You're also the only person in this thread to mention adhd medications.
 
 
OP never actually said the second part, he only said why it was an unfair advantage.
 
Razer isn't the one holding the tournament or even a sponsor, so the fact that it was Razer that made the software and not some random person has no meaning. There's no laws against the blood doping that cyclists used to do, yet that's something that's still banned from the Tour de France and any other major cycling competition and will see you disqualified and barred from any future race.
 
This does put a player at a disadvantage, whether you agree or not. This allows a player to do something inhumanely fast, something that is physically impossible for another player unless they do the same thing. If you were to match up players of equal skill level but allow one to use macros and forbid the other, the one with macros would be more likely to win simply because of the macros, and that is an advantage.
 
The tournament holder's word isn't final because they're the tournament holder and they say so, it's final because the players participating agreed to their terms in order to play, one of them being rules that would result in disqualification if broken. Again, whether you agree or not doesn't matter, this is a contract they signed to participate and they broke it knowing full well what the penalties could be.
 
 
That is true, if it was a competition of the best macros rather than the best players it would only appeal to an even more niche audience than the current one, but that doesn't mean it's greed. You can be successful and earn money without being greedy, and as far as I know they haven't done anything excessive enough to qualify as greedy.
 
I can't solve your feelings on a subject for you, but not caring about money or anything but fun doesn't legitimize rule breaking in a tournament that the players have agreed to these rules.
 
 
Again, not a single person has said they're the same but you. The closest anyone has come to saying that any of these things are the same is in saying that they're all cheating.
 
How easily available it is to use or obtain is completely irrelevant, nor is it the same as the dev putting the option in. There are many different programs that don't modify game files or interfere with other players but give the player an advantage, all of which are banned from tournaments regardless of availability.
 
It's certainly the players fault when it's something that is explicitly stated is against the rules. It is entirely their fault, either for ignoring them or not reading them and knowing what they were. If a tournament allowed both 144hz and 60hz monitors and you chose to use a 60hz one, then you're right, but this comparison doesn't fit what happened here and is misleading. A proper comparison would be that a tournament only allowed 60hz monitors and someone was caught using a 144hz monitor and disqualified for it. They *were* cheating here, that isn't something that's up for debate.
 
 
Please, show us any large tournament that allows them. I believe this is the third time now that you've made this claim without any evidence to support it, meanwhile those on the other side of this argument have provided links to the official sites for multiple that have expressly said they're banned. It's on you to provide evidence on this claim, not on others to disprove something you've claimed without a single scrap of evidence to back it up.
 
When you talk about hundreds of thousands of tournaments, you seem to be talking about even the little unofficial ones high schools or workplaces will have, that's the only way to reach that high of a number. Of course these little ones might not have rules against them, they likely aren't serious tournaments, only something for fun between friends and coworkers. When we talk about tournaments, we're talking about the large formal tournamnets that actually have significant prizes and draw in spectators beyond the families and friends of the participants, trying to equate these smaller, informal tournaments to them is, again, misleading.
 
 
 
Almost everything you've said so far has been misleading, a strawman, or blatantly misrepresenting another's words. None of your arguments hold any water under the smallest bit of scrutiny.

Alright, let's go through this step by step since that's a nice big wall of text. This is gonna be a long one so buckle gently.
 
 
You were the first to compare them. The closest anyone came to saying that was saying that they're both cheating. Ben made this exasperated statement in response to a handwave by you to ignore another post.
No one said that they were comparable but you. You're also the only person in this thread to mention adhd medications.
 
 
OP never actually said the second part, he only said why it was an unfair advantage.
 
Razer isn't the one holding the tournament or even a sponsor, so the fact that it was Razer that made the software and not some random person has no meaning. There's no laws against the blood doping that cyclists used to do, yet that's something that's still banned from the Tour de France and any other major cycling competition and will see you disqualified and barred from any future race.
 
This does put a player at a disadvantage, whether you agree or not. This allows a player to do something inhumanely fast, something that is physically impossible for another player unless they do the same thing. If you were to match up players of equal skill level but allow one to use macros and forbid the other, the one with macros would be more likely to win simply because of the macros, and that is an advantage.
 
The tournament holder's word isn't final because they're the tournament holder and they say so, it's final because the players participating agreed to their terms in order to play, one of them being rules that would result in disqualification if broken. Again, whether you agree or not doesn't matter, this is a contract they signed to participate and they broke it knowing full well what the penalties could be.
 
 
That is true, if it was a competition of the best macros rather than the best players it would only appeal to an even more niche audience than the current one, but that doesn't mean it's greed. You can be successful and earn money without being greedy, and as far as I know they haven't done anything excessive enough to qualify as greedy.
 
I can't solve your feelings on a subject for you, but not caring about money or anything but fun doesn't legitimize rule breaking in a tournament that the players have agreed to these rules.
 
 
Again, not a single person has said they're the same but you. The closest anyone has come to saying that any of these things are the same is in saying that they're all cheating.
 
How easily available it is to use or obtain is completely irrelevant, nor is it the same as the dev putting the option in. There are many different programs that don't modify game files or interfere with other players but give the player an advantage, all of which are banned from tournaments regardless of availability.
 
It's certainly the players fault when it's something that is explicitly stated is against the rules. It is entirely their fault, either for ignoring them or not reading them and knowing what they were. If a tournament allowed both 144hz and 60hz monitors and you chose to use a 60hz one, then you're right, but this comparison doesn't fit what happened here and is misleading. A proper comparison would be that a tournament only allowed 60hz monitors and someone was caught using a 144hz monitor and disqualified for it. They *were* cheating here, that isn't something that's up for debate.
 
 
Please, show us any large tournament that allows them. I believe this is the third time now that you've made this claim without any evidence to support it, meanwhile those on the other side of this argument have provided links to the official sites for multiple that have expressly said they're banned. It's on you to provide evidence on this claim, not on others to disprove something you've claimed without a single scrap of evidence to back it up.
 
When you talk about hundreds of thousands of tournaments, you seem to be talking about even the little unofficial ones high schools or workplaces will have, that's the only way to reach that high of a number. Of course these little ones might not have rules against them, they likely aren't serious tournaments, only something for fun between friends and coworkers. When we talk about tournaments, we're talking about the large formal tournamnets that actually have significant prizes and draw in spectators beyond the families and friends of the participants, trying to equate these smaller, informal tournaments to them is, again, misleading.
 
 
 
Almost everything you've said so far has been misleading, a strawman, or blatantly misrepresenting another's words. None of your arguments hold any water under the smallest bit of scrutiny.

You're not even strawmanning anymore, you're just blatantly misrepresenting their arguments... 

Why is it so hard for people to understand that macros should be banned from competitive play?

Yes. The cop did directly violate his rights, by not properly attaining consent to a non-mandatory search of his vehicle.
 
Proper steps were not taken. The guy used Google Translate. I applaud his quick thinking in the field, but the translation was gibberish. That by itself invalidates any consent.
 
If I stop you in your car, and start saying "Can find you help me find the car?" in broken English, and you say "yes?", does that give me the right to search your vehicle without a warrant? No. It does not. I, as the authority in this situation, cannot guarantee that your "Yes" was any kind of consent on the matter, and not you just being like "WTF is this dude talking about?"
 
It's quite clear actually. Despite the fact that the guy is obviously guilty - which is actually irrelevant. Constitutional rights are the most important foundation of any free and just country - which is something Americans claim to very dearly.
What are you even talking about here? Him asking for directions or buying food? What does that have to do with your constitutional right not to have your vehicle searched without a warrant, or clear and uncoerced consent?
 
We can assume he understands English all we want. But unless it can be proven in the court that he is fluent, that means jack all. Nothing. So far, he's played the card that he doesn't understand English, and as long as he's consistent about that, there's no reason or cause to just "assume" without evidence that he speaks English.
 
They should have had a translator meet them on-site, and verified consent, and if he didn't provide consent, go through the process of acquiring a Warrant, as is the law.
We're not talking about some random mental issue. Please stop moving the goal post. Furthermore, if someone breaks a law due to a mental condition, do you just think they get a "get out of jail free" card? No. They get a mental evaluation, and if they fail said evaluation? They get sent to a secure mental health facility - crazy person jail, for the lay person.
 
Yes it is obvious that this man is guilty.
 
That's why it's such a shame that the police violated his constitutional rights, and ruined the case.
 
Don't want that to happen? Hold police to higher standards.
 
This was easily avoidable.

Can't you just download it from elsewhere and install it manually? Oh wait, thats android

Let's review really quick why hating on just having a woman because of historical inaccuracies is more than a bit hypocritical. If you want to hate on the whole trailer, that's all good and we have no problems. It kind of deserves it tbh. 

Let's review really quick why hating on just having a woman because of historical inaccuracies is more than a bit hypocritical. If you want to hate on the whole trailer, that's all good and we have no problems. It kind of deserves it tbh. 

He forgot how that grenade shot in midair also took out a plane.... they didn't fly that low for strafing runs.

Let's review really quick why hating on just having a woman because of historical inaccuracies is more than a bit hypocritical. If you want to hate on the whole trailer, that's all good and we have no problems. It kind of deserves it tbh. 

This Luke Skywalker cameo needs to happen.

Indeed! It's quite comical reading through this thread. 
 
The game is still going to sell like hotcakes I'm sure. The grenade being chucked in midair and then getting shot to take out a plane was a bit ridiculous... but let's see what the gameplay is like. 

This thread is amusing to read. 
 
My view on the whole thing is this isn't a big deal in a game that isn't meant to be realistic and never has. To argue that it's a deal breaker seems to be hypocritical with how much else you'd have to ignore. 

This thread is amusing to read. 
 
My view on the whole thing is this isn't a big deal in a game that isn't meant to be realistic and never has. To argue that it's a deal breaker seems to be hypocritical with how much else you'd have to ignore.