Ok guys, hold on. I've been trying to cut down on my posts' lengthiness which I myself think can get very long. But, sometimes I bundle responses to more than one person in a single post and that contributes to the length.
First, I responded to Corwyn, and then to the others who responded to him. I was trying to heighten the level of discernment people use, particularly regarding being called "a cheat."
@Corwyn
Corwyn:4. Ignore it, delete the WallPosts and move on. (But does a lack of response suggest that one has something to hide?)
Some may misconstrue and misjudge the accused's right and choice of silence as a tacit admission of guilt.
Corwyn: Why haven't I declared that I'm not a cheat? To be honest, I don't think such an accusation is worth a response.
And thefore I gave a reason why one may not directly respond to the accusation (i.e., stay silent), because the accusation, which I said I think is reckless, isn't even clearly delineated! I said, "Perhaps it isn't easy to deny an accusation that is so ambiguous and I think reckless. Who knows what s/he even means!"
It is my opinion that if you respond to the unqualified and un-evidenced accusation with a denial without exposing the ambiguity (I am not saying you did not do so) you, or anyone, can give credit to not only your accuser, but anyone else who does such an accusation. Those who make such wantonly embarrassing accusations devoid of evidence as support should be exposed for doing what they actually are doing, not get credit with a denial which I think in some way validates the method of accusation (i.e., NO EVIDENCE PRESENTED).
GolfingJMan: perhaps you could reach out and try to have a
discussion with the person to understand exactly what s/he is referring
to with the usage of the word "cheat." As I recall, that is what I did.
It did not stop the profusion of bitter messages at me, but at least I
tried to extend an olive branch.
And therefore, I was suggesting that if you decide to directly respond to the accuser's accusatory (not accusativenote) post, you ask him/her what s/he is even saying by that word "cheat."
3 POTENTIAL MEANINGS OF THE ORIGINAL ACCUSATION
Corwyn: That said, I don't believe I've cheated under any possible definition you could come up with (and you seem to have come up with quite a few).
OK, I gave a few, three, ideas of what the accuser's usage of the word "cheat" could be referring to. I guess it may seem like the ideas originated with me, but I learned these ideas from reading other people's posts on the issues of auto-dingers, third-party Shot/Putter Pals, and sandbagging.
GolfingJMan: What did the person mean by "cheat"? Does the
purported "accuser" mean you have used an auto-dinger software
application? Does the person mean you have committed some form of
"sandbagging" or used a third-party shot/putter pal or something else
related to the game?
Where I got my ideas:
1) Of course, reading the forums you can see people accuse others of using an auto-ding program. I did not come up with this way of being "a cheat."
2) Someone accused me of cheating and, as I recall, it was because I was on the Red Tees and a level 79 or 80, somewhere near that level. I had my main irons, the MAX Precision Iron Set (L45+); I like the MAX Precision Irons because I think the super faster meter with the starter ball provides a level of realism with my own golf swing. And I think I was using my 230yd 3wood as a driver instead of the 275yd TaylorMade R1 (L48+) because I didn't anyone feeling like I was being "unfair." I had 4 wedges, a 3wood, and the free unlimited ball. My partner (a Master, I was excited to have someone of that tier on my team) complained that I had 4 wedges instead of a "driver." Sometimes you can't please everyone. As I recall, my accuser eventually said I was "a cheat"/"cheater" because I was still an amateur. I could easily have bought slower-meter irons or MAX Meter balls and played ranked rounds and tiered up just to placate such vitriolic persons in the future, but I don't like to impulsively change my life simply because some belligerent person tries to browbeat me into tiering up according their ambiguous terms. If I am "a cheat" according to their definition (not WGT's), then I guess I am, according to their definition, "a cheat." I guess I'll refrain from playing so as not to offend such players. As well as my accuser's accusation, I've read many forum posts on the subject of sandbagging. The idea that someone may be sandbagging by not playing or scoring as low as potentially possible in ranked rounds did not originate with me either.
3) The idea that third party programs might be illegal certainly isn't my
original idea, that topic has been previously discussed on these forums,
years and years ago. Also, I was in a country club's chat room in early 2014 or late 2013, and I watched as people who were previously friendly with each other somehow wandered onto the topic of using a third party program like WigerToods2010's Shot/Putter Pal creation. As the conversation degenerated into a very heated debate centering on the operative word "cheat," I thought, I wonder do these people even understand what a "cheat" is! They were arguing and "virtually" shouting at each other apparently over an unspecified usage of the word "cheat."
If Person A is defending himself and is using the word "cheat" referring to illegality according to WGT's Terms & Conditions and Person B is equivocally using the word "cheat" according to his own personal pet definition to accuse Person A, the ambiguous accusation and subsequent hostile argument between the two without a civilly and clearly defined understanding of what the word "cheat" means when each person uses the word is, I think, juvenile.
Your accuser, who has since apologized, was doing the same thing! He was just throwing out a word that is so loaded with potential damage and broadly ambiguous with no presented evidence that I think he ought to retract and apologize!
When I was accused of being a cheater in that late Aug/early Sept, 2013 game perhaps a dozen times, what should I have said? Do I say "No I am not a cheat!" when I don't even know what the person means? Am I doing something illegal (i.e., against WGT's Terms & Conditions) that I am not aware of? I big thing I am thinking is, "What do you mean?" As I recall, I kept asking, what do you mean, and I kept getting that redundant response: you are a cheat!
Does such an accuser think that using a third party Shot/Putter Pal is illegal when it is actually permitted? How can I accurately understand what I am actually denying when the accusation is so ambiguous?
WHY I GAVE THE 3 IDEAS AND MY VERDICT
You seemed surprised as to what basis someone would have to make the accusation,
Corwyn: I was surprised because I've always thought of myself as the least likely person to be accused of cheating
and therefore I was offering my idea of what it
might be, drawing on my own experience and reading those of others'.
After giving the three ideas that I've learned from others' accusations, I nominated one of those three I thought was a likely possible cause of the accuser's accusation i.e., sand bagging—what understanding the accuser may have of the sandbagging is, I don't know.
Your second place finishes and not tiering up is something that I
could see someone somewhat understandably being suspicious and subsequently call you a "cheat"(meaning sandbagger in this instance). I suggested that as a possible
basis for his accusation. Additionally, you play ranked rounds with the
WGT Starter Clubs and free unlimited ball and shoot in the 70+ in the Starters Virtual Tour
which you founded and play in, some may overtly accuse or secretly
despise you and others for what they misperceive as intentionally ruining scoring average to stay below Tour Legend. I think it is not a farfetched idea
to consider that the accuser might be suspecting and insinuating you're some kind of a sandbagger.
I was getting
that suspicion and insinuation (i.e., that using equipment far below one's level in ranked or scored games is
inherently a form of sandbagging) which I suspected he may harbor (and
which I suspect others have had toward me) out in the open, exposing it,
and then rejecting it with what I thought was a candid, but
soft-spoken, denunciation based in verifiable fact (i.e., there is no explicit or implicit requirement in WGT's Terms & Conditions to only use equipment equivalent to one's level).
I gave my verdict: NOT GUILTY. I said that I DO NOT SEE ANYTHING
ILLEGAL with playing with clubs well below your level in ranked rounds.
The verdict was in reference to the accuser's word "cheat" meaning
something against WGT's Terms & Conditions. But, that definition
may or may not be what your accuser meant, so I guess one could call it a "provisional verdict." Or, perhaps the accuser could have meant a combination of that
definition as well as his/her own capricious concoction of secret personal definitions. I
don't know and therefore I was refuting what I saw as the only legitimate usage
(i.e., that something was done against WGT's Terms & Conditions, not a personal capricious definition) of the word "cheat" in his un-evidenced, ambiguous, and reckless accusation.
We all have a choice as to which clubs to play and when and where to play them. WGT, so far as I know, has made no prohibition for doing so. I play with clubs way below my level too!
And I stated that I do not see your choice to use clubs well below your level as "illegal" (i.e., in violation of WGT's Terms & Conditions).
GolfingJMan: I personally do not see anything "illegal" (i.e., illegal according to WGT's official rules) with choosing to play with "clubs well below" your "level." If I am incorrect, someone please correct me.
We all can make misinterpretations and that is also why I requested anyone to point out if I am wrong about my perception of the WGT Terms & Conditions' allowance to play any ranked round with any equipment the player legally chooses to play with. (In an effort to not sound arrogant I say yes, that includes me, it is possible for me to make mistakes too!)
I think it is important to note that nowhere in WGT's current Terms & Conditions is the word "sandbag." The absence of that word may not have always been the case and it may not be in the future. However, right now I cannot find the word "sandbag" or "sandbagger" in the Ts & Cs.
@mkg335
mkg335: JMan, I think your intentions are good
Ok thx mkg.
Yes, I am trying to help eliminate this mentality of quickly jumping on people with this scoffing spirit. That is why I said I think what Corwyn did (asking for advice) was better than thoughtlessly reciprocating (i.e., having the mentality the accuser did and just hurl personal insults, a mentality which may have unintended collateral damage). I was surprised that after Corwyn made his comment about how easy it is to make assumptions and that "one doesn't always know nearly enough to make a judgment" (i.e., an accurate judgment) people subsequently responded with personal insults based on assumptions, likely educated assumptions, but assumptions nonetheless. So, I responded with what I thought would help re-highlight the caution ApexPC and Corwyn advocated.
If the entire community swiftly and habitually recognizes ambiguous allegations with
no evidence for what they are, then I think such allegations do
nothing to smear the accused's name but smear the accuser's. That culture is what I was
trying to contribute to. I know that some may consider that a most unrealistic idyllic community, but I think it's worth striving for.
mkg335: Finally, you went off on a bit of a tangent, saying
"the person may actually be the same..." Of course that's possible,
but highly unlikely, and really has nothing to do with the subject at
hand.
I see how what I said seems off topic. I was trying to address a mentality that I perceived (rightly or wrongly) can lead to unintended collateral damage.
I also was trying to address the idea of denying being "a cheat" without even clarifying what the accuser means can lead to a cycle that continues with no peaceful resolution. I think first seeking to understand is good and I thought Corwyn was doing that.
If a person is an illiterate fool, I think it can be difficult to actually determine what the person's accusation is about in the first place and so I was saying that "it isn't easy to hastily reach a sound
judgment" (in other words it isn't easy for at least me to do so).
I don't know what happened between you and your accuser, but if yours was anything like mine, I know it can very hard to feel empathy. I know when someone makes what appears to be an outrageous allegation, empathy is probably not the first thing to feel. Sorry for that mkg, if I seemed condescending.
We all are able to make mistakes (typos, grammatical errors, etc) especially when tired or in a bad mood (as dan suggested), and so I think it is better to not have a demeaning and scoffing attitude about others' mistakes or lack of maturity. I think it is better to have an attitude of trying to encourage others to increase maturation and make/maintain peace.
mkg335: Please don't be insulted, but your post comes off with a bit of a condescending air, and its tone carries the all-too-familiar sense of the lecturer who talks much but says little.
In reference to what I addressed to those other than the OP (Corwyn), I really did have little to say, I just used what some may consider a lot of words to try to unambiguously explain the little I had to say.
@jimbog1964
I know it may have seemed nitpicky when I said,
GolfingJMan: (I know the difference between a typo and an error in grammar.)
I knew your errors were just typographical errors, easy to make, not errors in elementary grammar. Same with alosso's case, a very understandable misspelling of a very peculiar peculiarity of English (nothing to be mocked). I was trying to say that I know it isn't a big error in elementary understanding, in contrast to what Corwyn's accuser seemed to have displayed.
@fatdan
fatdan: Wrong, people who are promoted with less than 500 RR and a 60 avg. transferred their stats from a facebook account to a regular WGT...or their last name is Chang'
Yes, I know dan, it can be hard to believe, but I have evidence. I can show you a player profile that was not promoted because of transferring an account from Facebook and who has less than 300 ranked rounds,
total.
Another player profile has less than 500 total ranked rounds and became a TL in March, 2014 but joined WGT in March 2010. I don't want to name names on the forums because I am not sure if I'll get in trouble, so if anyone desires to see the evidence, just ask and I can show you.
I hope this helps,
JMan
P.S. In an effort to be concise with my original post in this thread, I did not focus on expanding on qualifications that might help reduce the possibility of misinterpretations.
What has now happened is I attempted to make a concise post that some
may consider long, and now I've responded with one even longer. In an
effort to avoid such lengthy disambiguation responses and mea culpa
posts, I usually have tried to get it all out in one initial post.
I usually try to avoid ambiguity more than trying to avoid being lengthy in my publications because I think that is more important than the inverse, and that sometimes leads to multiple paragraphs of qualifications.
Some may consider me arrogant, but from my understanding of dictionary.com's definition, my initial post in its entirety does not suggest what arrogance is:
noun
1.
offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride.
Think about it, if anyone expressed true arrogance (not a personal misinterpretation of what arrogance is, but Dictionary.com's definition) in this thread, it is those who derided the accuser's intellectual competence and possibly others'. Whether or not anyone may judge the mockery as being deserved or not is immaterial to the possibly very offensive, but I think definite, display of perceived superiority by those making the derisive posts.
But, I suppose arrogance, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Some may be offended at certain displays while others would never think anyone would be offended by that display.
And, by the way, I don't think there is inherently something wrong with superiority. Those posts cautioning for restraint and careful consideration of facts instead of rushing to judgment I think are certainly far superior to those posts such as Corwyn's accuser's accusatory post. I don't see anything to be ashamed of in that regard. I definitely consider my initial reply and Corwyn's reply which I think cautioned others not to make accusations based on inadequately evidenced assumptions certainly superior to that of Corwyn's accuser's accusatory post.
There may be debate on who is more superior among the various posts superior to Corwyn's accuser's post, but there is nothing that I see that is innately improper about having a coherently, ethically, and grammatically, superior post and knowing it.
I am not advocating intentionally careless offensive snobbery. I am attempting to help alleviate anyone's misguided disdain for superiority. And I hope that doesn't seem offensive.