ALT + D

[BrookG]

How are they not arguments? Don't pull out the "this is not an argument" card every time you disagree

[momuuu]

I m telling you again, nomenclature is of little significance. Whether alt+d happens in casual games matters only for the players that are involved in that game. The fact that there are arguments against its use on tournaments should end the discussion:
1) Advantages only for certain types of explorers (Warchiefs and monks are overall more special than european explorers)
2) The experience points earned aren't a given situation, therefore the drawback isn't present at all times
3) It is easily executable, considering it's vague whether it's intentionally implemented or not

None of this shows that alt-d should be banned though..

Why not? How is giving an unfair advantage to some civs on a competitive level not enough?

No? Going to age 3 gives some civs an advantage too. Should we ban it? Age 4 is totally imbalanced, should we include it in the tournament rules that going age 4 is not allowed?

Besides, you're using the word "unfair" but there is nothing unfair about it. It gives an advantage to some civs, but whether that is unfair is actually debatable. Besides, this is like saying it's unfair to play a strong civ on RE versus a weaker civ, which is totally ridiculous.

[momuuu]

How are they not arguments? Don't pull out the "this is not an argument" card every time you disagree

I don't mind an alt-d ban, but your arguments don't argue anything. It's a list of facts. You either need to expand on them and show the logic because you're not presenting an actual case.

[deleted_user0]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_exploit#cite_note-Consalvo_07,_113-2

Tsk, tsk. You are lazy today.

1) Exploits have been classified as a form of cheating; however, the precise determination of what is or is not considered an exploit can be controversial.

2) Exploit =/= hacking. I didn't say it wasn't an exploit. It is. So is alt-d. That's not the question. The question is, is it a cheat, and if so, why so? The conclusion is that is only so because people have decided it is. If you support this conclusion for alt-d, but not for moesbar, you are a dirty hypocrite.

Arguments in favor of the cheating view involve the spirit of the game and the potentially damaging effects of the exploit on the game's community.[3][4] While the rules or game code may not explicitly disallow a specific exploit, it may be seen that using that exploit goes against the spirit of the game.[3]

So it's not possible that I think moesbar has "damaging effects on the game's community" and that "using that exploit goes against the spirit of the game" while I do not think the same thing about alt-d? Maybe it's a nuanced subject where the game-changing nature of moesbar (or rather, the way that literally removes everything about the game) versus the subtle difference of alt-d can swing one's opinion? I'd find it easier to make a case against moesbar to be honest.

Sure, you can find that, but that's just subjective. All it means is that you are on the side of people deciding its a cheat, while you are on tbe opposite side for alt-d.

Adding a little eco theory at the start of the game is a subtle difference imo. It doesnt change the nature of the game at all, and definitely doesnt remove everything about it.

"damaging effects on the game's community" and that "using that exploit goes against the spirit of the game" the same can be said, and is said about alt-d. Theyre not decisive arguments. Neither is which case you find easier to make.

I haven't heard any objection yet which sets moesbar principally apart from alt-d. And so im still confused about why you condemn one, but not tbe other.

[momuuu]

1) Water gives an advantage to some civs
2) Water doesn't always have a drawback
3) Water is relatively easy to execute.

Ergo we should ban water play.

[momuuu]

Show hidden quotes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_exploit#cite_note-Consalvo_07,_113-2

Tsk, tsk. You are lazy today.

1) Exploits have been classified as a form of cheating; however, the precise determination of what is or is not considered an exploit can be controversial.

2) Exploit =/= hacking. I didn't say it wasn't an exploit. It is. So is alt-d. That's not the question. The question is, is it a cheat, and if so, why so? The conclusion is that is only so because people have decided it is. If you support this conclusion for alt-d, but not for moesbar, you are a dirty hypocrite.

Arguments in favor of the cheating view involve the spirit of the game and the potentially damaging effects of the exploit on the game's community.[3][4] While the rules or game code may not explicitly disallow a specific exploit, it may be seen that using that exploit goes against the spirit of the game.[3]

So it's not possible that I think moesbar has "damaging effects on the game's community" and that "using that exploit goes against the spirit of the game" while I do not think the same thing about alt-d? Maybe it's a nuanced subject where the game-changing nature of moesbar (or rather, the way that literally removes everything about the game) versus the subtle difference of alt-d can swing one's opinion? I'd find it easier to make a case against moesbar to be honest.

Sure, you can find that, but that's just subjective. All it means is that you are on the side of people deciding its a cheat, while you are on tbe opposite side for alt-d.

Adding a little eco theory at the start of the game is a subtle difference imo. It doesnt change the nature of the game at all, and definitely doesnt remove everything about it.

"damaging effects on the game's community" and that "using that exploit goes against the spirit of the game" the same can be said, and is said about alt-d. Theyre not decisive arguments. Neither is which case you find easier to make.

I haven't heard any objection yet which sets moesbar principally apart from alt-d. And so im still confused about why you condemn one, but not tbe other.

Well, adding eco theory to both sides doesn't really matter and I wouldn't mind that so much. The problem that distuingishes moesbar from alt-d is that actually using it to its full extend removes the game.

Again though, anything is subjective in this game. I don't need to prove that Moesbar is cheating and neither do people need to prove that alt-d is cheating. But the subtlety does matter, does it not? It is ridiculous to be as condemning about alt-d as people are about moesbar. In the extreme case moesbar removes the entire game, while alt-d changes one small mechanic a tiny bit. While moderate moesbar could be fun, the practicality is that it's hard to have both players use the same minimal amount of moesbar, while it's easy for both players to use alt-d.

[BrookG]

You are in a logical fallacy here. Certain explorers are by design more special than others, therefore it's useful for the player to get rid of them. It is an important unit and you can revive them with a price; that may be 100c ransom, waiting to reach 100hp, dance in firepit. Alt+d equals no price paying for getting back your unit, and xp from killing again isn't always a trivial thing. Civs that care more about their explorer can pay much less for taking it back, hence it is unfair.

Then going to age3 costs you 2200 res, the age-up time, being vulnerable if you don't have enough army etc. It's not comparable. There are strategic choices involved where you weigh the advantages and disadvantages. I could go fast revolt, but I have to ensure my villagers are safe to gather the resources and protect my TC in the meanwhile.

As for a civ being unfair, I remind you of Iroquois and Ottomans being banned in RE tourney

[Garja]

Alt-d changes a lot in term of gameplay, that's the first fallacy when someone seriously advocate for alt-d not being cheating.

[deleted_user0]

Show hidden quotes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_exploit#cite_note-Consalvo_07,_113-2

Tsk, tsk. You are lazy today.

1) Exploits have been classified as a form of cheating; however, the precise determination of what is or is not considered an exploit can be controversial.

2) Exploit =/= hacking. I didn't say it wasn't an exploit. It is. So is alt-d. That's not the question. The question is, is it a cheat, and if so, why so? The conclusion is that is only so because people have decided it is. If you support this conclusion for alt-d, but not for moesbar, you are a dirty hypocrite.

Arguments in favor of the cheating view involve the spirit of the game and the potentially damaging effects of the exploit on the game's community.[3][4] While the rules or game code may not explicitly disallow a specific exploit, it may be seen that using that exploit goes against the spirit of the game.[3]

So it's not possible that I think moesbar has "damaging effects on the game's community" and that "using that exploit goes against the spirit of the game" while I do not think the same thing about alt-d? Maybe it's a nuanced subject where the game-changing nature of moesbar (or rather, the way that literally removes everything about the game) versus the subtle difference of alt-d can swing one's opinion? I'd find it easier to make a case against moesbar to be honest.

Sure, you can find that, but that's just subjective. All it means is that you are on the side of people deciding its a cheat, while you are on tbe opposite side for alt-d.

Adding a little eco theory at the start of the game is a subtle difference imo. It doesnt change the nature of the game at all, and definitely doesnt remove everything about it.

"damaging effects on the game's community" and that "using that exploit goes against the spirit of the game" the same can be said, and is said about alt-d. Theyre not decisive arguments. Neither is which case you find easier to make.

I haven't heard any objection yet which sets moesbar principally apart from alt-d. And so im still confused about why you condemn one, but not tbe other.

Well, adding eco theory to both sides doesn't really matter and I wouldn't mind that so much. The problem that distuingishes moesbar from alt-d is that actually using it to its full extend removes the game.

Again though, anything is subjective in this game. I don't need to prove that Moesbar is cheating and neither do people need to prove that alt-d is cheating. But the subtlety does matter, does it not? It is ridiculous to be as condemning about alt-d as people are about moesbar. In the extreme case moesbar removes the entire game, while alt-d changes one small mechanic a tiny bit. While moderate moesbar could be fun, the practicality is that it's hard to have both players use the same minimal amount of moesbar, while it's easy for both players to use alt-d.

Thats a matter of opinion. It doesn't remove the game. The game is still there, and the win conditions are the same. It changes the game, some argue for worse, i say it does for the better. The same is true about alt-d.

I dont see why subtlety would matter, nor do i see what you mean by that. What is subtle about reviving your explorer with alt-d?

I dont see why its harder either, for people to use the same amount of moesbar than it is for them to use the same amount of alt-d. There is nothing which restricts the frequent usage of either. Both players can use moesbar just as easily as they can alt-d, I really fail to see how this constitutes an argument. It feels to me as if you are now just making up things just in order not to accept that theyre quite similar terms of being considered a cheat or not.

Also, why do both sides have to send eco theory? Surely alt-d isnt just a cheat when only 1 player does it, but not a cheat when both do it?

[BrookG]

1) Water gives an advantage to some civs

Yes some civs have stronger water potential, but it means you have to invest on it (cards, time, resources)

2) Water doesn't always have a drawback

It has, unless you turtle properly, don't have warships, outposts, TCs, protecting it.

3) Water is relatively easy to execute.

It's not as easy to execute.

[BrookG]

How are they not arguments? Don't pull out the "this is not an argument" card every time you disagree

I don't mind an alt-d ban, but your arguments don't argue anything. It's a list of facts. You either need to expand on them and show the logic because you're not presenting an actual case.

In logic and philosophy, an argument is a series of statements (in a natural language), called the premises or premisses (both spellings are acceptable), intended to determine the degree of truth of another statement, the conclusion.

These 3 points cater for not having alt+d in tournaments. Assuming we allow it, we allow for those imbalances, that are harder to patch otherwise.

[momuuu]

You are in a logical fallacy here. Certain explorers are by design more special than others, therefore it's useful for the player to get rid of them. It is an important unit and you can revive them with a price; that may be 100c ransom, waiting to reach 100hp, dance in firepit. Alt+d equals no price paying for getting back your unit, and xp from killing again isn't always a trivial thing. Civs that care more about their explorer can pay much less for taking it back, hence it is unfair.

Then going to age3 costs you 2200 res, the age-up time, being vulnerable if you don't have enough army etc. It's not comparable. There are strategic choices involved where you weigh the advantages and disadvantages. I could go fast revolt, but I have to ensure my villagers are safe to gather the resources and protect my TC in the meanwhile.

As for a civ being unfair, I remind you of Iroquois and Ottomans being banned in RE tourney

Why does it matter when something is strong or not? That doesn't lead to the conclusion that it should be banned at all. There's nothing in your reasoning that leads to "it should be banned". All you write make it reasonable to ban it in a tournament setting. The conclusion you reached is way too harsh. The conclusion you could reasonable defend, if you worked on your arguments more, is that it is currently wise to ban alt-d because it disrupts balance. However, that does not exclude the possibility to rebalance taking alt-d into account and thus doesn't condemn the essence of alt-d but it rather a pragmatic case. One that seems very reasonable. However your attempt to somehow extrapolate this case to generality, without providing logic (you hardly even backed up your list of 3 facts with a logical structure to begin with, which forces me to actually just guess what reasoning you are presenting), is misplaced and in my eyes straight up wrong.

I also don't see the logical fallacy. Going age 3 is better for some civs, doesn't always have drawbacks (it actually frequently doesn't have drawbacks), and doesn't require skill. It EXACTLY matches the logic you use to condemn alt-d. This is probably in part because your logic isn't logic but a list of simple facts. You have to provide some sort of structure that uses those facts to conclude something deductively, because otherwise you just aren't making a point. And that's exactly what the age 3 argument shows. Again let me reiterate this: It uses the exact same arguments.

[momuuu]

How are they not arguments? Don't pull out the "this is not an argument" card every time you disagree

I don't mind an alt-d ban, but your arguments don't argue anything. It's a list of facts. You either need to expand on them and show the logic because you're not presenting an actual case.

In logic and philosophy, an argument is a series of statements (in a natural language), called the premises or premisses (both spellings are acceptable), intended to determine the degree of truth of another statement, the conclusion.

These 3 points cater for not having alt+d in tournaments. Assuming we allow it, we allow for those imbalances, that are harder to patch otherwise.

Your list of points cannot determine the truth of "alt-d is a cheat". It can determine the truth of "banning alt-d in tournaments is prefered for practical reasons".

[deleted_user0]

You are in a logical fallacy here. Certain explorers are by design more special than others, therefore it's useful for the player to get rid of them. It is an important unit and you can revive them with a price; that may be 100c ransom, waiting to reach 100hp, dance in firepit. Alt+d equals no price paying for getting back your unit, and xp from killing again isn't always a trivial thing. Civs that care more about their explorer can pay much less for taking it back, hence it is unfair.

Then going to age3 costs you 2200 res, the age-up time, being vulnerable if you don't have enough army etc. It's not comparable. There are strategic choices involved where you weigh the advantages and disadvantages. I could go fast revolt, but I have to ensure my villagers are safe to gather the resources and protect my TC in the meanwhile.

As for a civ being unfair, I remind you of Iroquois and Ottomans being banned in RE tourney

Why does it matter when something is strong or not? That doesn't lead to the conclusion that it should be banned at all. There's nothing in your reasoning that leads to "it should be banned". All you write make it reasonable to ban it in a tournament setting. The conclusion you reached is way too harsh. The conclusion you could reasonable defend, if you worked on your arguments more, is that it is currently wise to ban alt-d because it disrupts balance. However, that does not exclude the possibility to rebalance taking alt-d into account and thus doesn't condemn the essence of alt-d but it rather a pragmatic case. One that seems very reasonable. However your attempt to somehow extrapolate this case to generality, without providing logic (you hardly even backed up your list of 3 facts with a logical structure to begin with, which forces me to actually just guess what reasoning you are presenting), is misplaced and in my eyes straight up wrong.

I also don't see the logical fallacy. Going age 3 is better for some civs, doesn't always have drawbacks (it actually frequently doesn't have drawbacks), and doesn't require skill. It EXACTLY matches the logic you use to condemn alt-d. This is probably in part because your logic isn't logic but a list of simple facts. You have to provide some sort of structure that uses those facts to conclude something deductively, because otherwise you just aren't making a point. And that's exactly what the age 3 argument shows. Again let me reiterate this: It uses the exact same arguments.

Exactly, well said. I totally agree. The same is also true for moesbar. Ive been trying to get people to see this for ages. Maybe theyll see it now.

[BrookG]

Your list of points cannot determine the truth of "alt-d is a cheat". It can determine the truth of "banning alt-d in tournaments is prefered for practical reasons".

Let's not stick on semantics.
nomenclature is of little significance.
Name it a bug, name it a feature, name it a cheat, it doesn't matter in the end.

But I don't care if it's a cheat or not. I am saying why it shouldn't be part of tournaments.

Whether alt+d happens in casual games matters only for the players that are involved in that game.

I also said that for casual games it has little effect on the community

[Snuden]

I don't tolerate Alt + D in any of my clans.

[supahons]

Alt + D isn't a cheat, it's something devs probably forgot to fix, maybe it had some purpose in testing. You can use it but doesn't make the game better to me. I think it's sometimes acceptable on LOST maps (eg. if sb of the other team kills you before building a tc). If you use it on other maps i simply put you on my pestlist

[momuuu]

Show hidden quotes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_exploit#cite_note-Consalvo_07,_113-2

Tsk, tsk. You are lazy today.

1) Exploits have been classified as a form of cheating; however, the precise determination of what is or is not considered an exploit can be controversial.

2) Exploit =/= hacking. I didn't say it wasn't an exploit. It is. So is alt-d. That's not the question. The question is, is it a cheat, and if so, why so? The conclusion is that is only so because people have decided it is. If you support this conclusion for alt-d, but not for moesbar, you are a dirty hypocrite.

Arguments in favor of the cheating view involve the spirit of the game and the potentially damaging effects of the exploit on the game's community.[3][4] While the rules or game code may not explicitly disallow a specific exploit, it may be seen that using that exploit goes against the spirit of the game.[3]

So it's not possible that I think moesbar has "damaging effects on the game's community" and that "using that exploit goes against the spirit of the game" while I do not think the same thing about alt-d? Maybe it's a nuanced subject where the game-changing nature of moesbar (or rather, the way that literally removes everything about the game) versus the subtle difference of alt-d can swing one's opinion? I'd find it easier to make a case against moesbar to be honest.

Sure, you can find that, but that's just subjective. All it means is that you are on the side of people deciding its a cheat, while you are on tbe opposite side for alt-d.

Adding a little eco theory at the start of the game is a subtle difference imo. It doesnt change the nature of the game at all, and definitely doesnt remove everything about it.

"damaging effects on the game's community" and that "using that exploit goes against the spirit of the game" the same can be said, and is said about alt-d. Theyre not decisive arguments. Neither is which case you find easier to make.

I haven't heard any objection yet which sets moesbar principally apart from alt-d. And so im still confused about why you condemn one, but not tbe other.

Well, adding eco theory to both sides doesn't really matter and I wouldn't mind that so much. The problem that distuingishes moesbar from alt-d is that actually using it to its full extend removes the game.

Again though, anything is subjective in this game. I don't need to prove that Moesbar is cheating and neither do people need to prove that alt-d is cheating. But the subtlety does matter, does it not? It is ridiculous to be as condemning about alt-d as people are about moesbar. In the extreme case moesbar removes the entire game, while alt-d changes one small mechanic a tiny bit. While moderate moesbar could be fun, the practicality is that it's hard to have both players use the same minimal amount of moesbar, while it's easy for both players to use alt-d.

Thats a matter of opinion. It doesn't remove the game. The game is still there, and the win conditions are the same. It changes the game, some argue for worse, i say it does for the better. The same is true about alt-d.

I dont see why subtlety would matter, nor do i see what you mean by that. What is subtle about reviving your explorer with alt-d?

I dont see why its harder either, for people to use the same amount of moesbar than it is for them to use the same amount of alt-d. There is nothing which restricts the frequent usage of either. Both players can use moesbar just as easily as they can alt-d, I really fail to see how this constitutes an argument. It feels to me as if you are now just making up things just in order not to accept that theyre quite similar terms of being considered a cheat or not.

Also, why do both sides have to send eco theory? Surely alt-d isnt just a cheat when only 1 player does it, but not a cheat when both do it?

Well for starters, I don't think moesbar is per definition cheating, if you do not need to mod anything in the game to do it. If you need to mod the game, I think it's possible to argue that moesbar is a cheat. I never denied this and I would not deny this. I only stressed that there is a difference in the effect that moesbar has on the game compared to alt-d, which means that directly comparing the two is a bit misplaced. In the case of moesbar, I think that ultimately everybody is of the opinion that it should be considered a cheat while for alt-d this isn't as clear (see the basement), which makes the discussion about it a bit different.

Again though, I would fully agree that moesbar is not necessarily a cheat. In these scenarios it's mostly a matter of consensus. In the case of moesbar I do fully agree with the consensus and the arguments against it to me completely outweigh the arguments in favor of it. I think everybody would agree with this. In the case of alt-d though, I don't think the arguments against it are as strong. I don't really mind it. If ESOC admins would come out and say that alt-d is allowed from now on, I wouldn't be upset I think. It makes me sad that people act as if thinking alt-d is okay is the same as thinking moesbar is okay, because the whole reason to think a cheat is okay is because of the way you value the arguments in favor of it and the precise impact it has on the game.

[momuuu]

Your list of points cannot determine the truth of "alt-d is a cheat". It can determine the truth of "banning alt-d in tournaments is prefered for practical reasons".

Let's not stick on semantics.
nomenclature is of little significance.
Name it a bug, name it a feature, name it a cheat, it doesn't matter in the end.

But I don't care if it's a cheat or not. I am saying why it shouldn't be part of tournaments.

Whether alt+d happens in casual games matters only for the players that are involved in that game.

I also said that for casual games it has little effect on the community

If you add: "alt-d should thus be banned from tournaments because it currently improves balance and it is impractical to try to fix balance for alt-d" and had never said this:

The fact is that it has little room in competitive play.

Then I'd agree with you. But alt-d has room in competitive play. I think in some aspects it actually vastly improves the game in a competitive space. The fact that poor luck in the early game, which can normally lead to one player not being able to get a TP, is mitigated by it is something that I think actually makes the game more competitive.

[BrookG]

Alt+d is not a cheat necessarily, but having it brings more trouble than we need. I cannot think of a reason to allow it in a tournament situation. Are the arguments for it, strong enough to diminish the strength those against it?
Reviving explorer isn't only about taking a tp or stealing a treasure, imagine Warchiefs boosting the native american armies after you spent so much time killing them. Imagine 2 Japanese monks keep on making shrines, a huge part of Japanese eco, while you are unaware assuming you killed them.

[Snuden]

Alt D is lame and should not be used by gentlemen.

[deleted_user0]

Show hidden quotes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_exploit#cite_note-Consalvo_07,_113-2

Tsk, tsk. You are lazy today.

1) Exploits have been classified as a form of cheating; however, the precise determination of what is or is not considered an exploit can be controversial.

2) Exploit =/= hacking. I didn't say it wasn't an exploit. It is. So is alt-d. That's not the question. The question is, is it a cheat, and if so, why so? The conclusion is that is only so because people have decided it is. If you support this conclusion for alt-d, but not for moesbar, you are a dirty hypocrite.

Arguments in favor of the cheating view involve the spirit of the game and the potentially damaging effects of the exploit on the game's community.[3][4] While the rules or game code may not explicitly disallow a specific exploit, it may be seen that using that exploit goes against the spirit of the game.[3]

So it's not possible that I think moesbar has "damaging effects on the game's community" and that "using that exploit goes against the spirit of the game" while I do not think the same thing about alt-d? Maybe it's a nuanced subject where the game-changing nature of moesbar (or rather, the way that literally removes everything about the game) versus the subtle difference of alt-d can swing one's opinion? I'd find it easier to make a case against moesbar to be honest.

Sure, you can find that, but that's just subjective. All it means is that you are on the side of people deciding its a cheat, while you are on tbe opposite side for alt-d.

Adding a little eco theory at the start of the game is a subtle difference imo. It doesnt change the nature of the game at all, and definitely doesnt remove everything about it.

"damaging effects on the game's community" and that "using that exploit goes against the spirit of the game" the same can be said, and is said about alt-d. Theyre not decisive arguments. Neither is which case you find easier to make.

I haven't heard any objection yet which sets moesbar principally apart from alt-d. And so im still confused about why you condemn one, but not tbe other.

Well, adding eco theory to both sides doesn't really matter and I wouldn't mind that so much. The problem that distuingishes moesbar from alt-d is that actually using it to its full extend removes the game.

Again though, anything is subjective in this game. I don't need to prove that Moesbar is cheating and neither do people need to prove that alt-d is cheating. But the subtlety does matter, does it not? It is ridiculous to be as condemning about alt-d as people are about moesbar. In the extreme case moesbar removes the entire game, while alt-d changes one small mechanic a tiny bit. While moderate moesbar could be fun, the practicality is that it's hard to have both players use the same minimal amount of moesbar, while it's easy for both players to use alt-d.

Thats a matter of opinion. It doesn't remove the game. The game is still there, and the win conditions are the same. It changes the game, some argue for worse, i say it does for the better. The same is true about alt-d.

I dont see why subtlety would matter, nor do i see what you mean by that. What is subtle about reviving your explorer with alt-d?

I dont see why its harder either, for people to use the same amount of moesbar than it is for them to use the same amount of alt-d. There is nothing which restricts the frequent usage of either. Both players can use moesbar just as easily as they can alt-d, I really fail to see how this constitutes an argument. It feels to me as if you are now just making up things just in order not to accept that theyre quite similar terms of being considered a cheat or not.

Also, why do both sides have to send eco theory? Surely alt-d isnt just a cheat when only 1 player does it, but not a cheat when both do it?

Well for starters, I don't think moesbar is per definition cheating, if you do not need to mod anything in the game to do it. If you need to mod the game, I think it's possible to argue that moesbar is a cheat. I never denied this and I would not deny this. I only stressed that there is a difference in the effect that moesbar has on the game compared to alt-d, which means that directly comparing the two is a bit misplaced. In the case of moesbar, I think that ultimately everybody is of the opinion that it should be considered a cheat while for alt-d this isn't as clear (see the basement), which makes the discussion about it a bit different.

Again though, I would fully agree that moesbar is not necessarily a cheat. In these scenarios it's mostly a matter of consensus. In the case of moesbar I do fully agree with the consensus and the arguments against it to me completely outweigh the arguments in favor of it. I think everybody would agree with this. In the case of alt-d though, I don't think the arguments against it are as strong. I don't really mind it. If ESOC admins would come out and say that alt-d is allowed from now on, I wouldn't be upset I think. It makes me sad that people act as if thinking alt-d is okay is the same as thinking moesbar is okay, because the whole reason to think a cheat is okay is because of the way you value the arguments in favor of it and the precise impact it has on the game.

Sure, there is a difference. Alt-d makes the game more unfair, while moesbar makes the game fairer. But that's irrelevant. Thank you for admitting that moesbar is only banned because people have decided to do so. Even though the majority if the people have decided that moesbar has a negative effect on the game, and therefor should be banned, the same is true about alt-d. Still, in both cases, this is just their opinion, right?
And therefore it doesnt have authority.

Please tell me what you perceive the precise impact is of alt-d on the game, and nothing less, please.

[deleted_user0]

Your list of points cannot determine the truth of "alt-d is a cheat". It can determine the truth of "banning alt-d in tournaments is prefered for practical reasons".

Let's not stick on semantics.
nomenclature is of little significance.
Name it a bug, name it a feature, name it a cheat, it doesn't matter in the end.

But I don't care if it's a cheat or not. I am saying why it shouldn't be part of tournaments.

Whether alt+d happens in casual games matters only for the players that are involved in that game.

I also said that for casual games it has little effect on the community

If you add: "alt-d should thus be banned from tournaments because it currently improves balance and it is impractical to try to fix balance for alt-d" and had never said this:

The fact is that it has little room in competitive play.

Then I'd agree with you. But alt-d has room in competitive play. I think in some aspects it actually vastly improves the game in a competitive space. The fact that poor luck in the early game, which can normally lead to one player not being able to get a TP, is mitigated by it is something that I think actually makes the game more competitive.

I think it makes it less competitive. Now, who is right? Btw, nobody ever loses their explorer due to bad luck, just due to bad play. So anything mitigating that definitely decreases competitiveness, as bad play is less punished.

Also i think moesbar is good for competitive gameplay.

[Snuden]

Let's all moesbar.

[EAGLEMUT]

Cover mode exploit, as well as the revive glitch, are clearly taking advantage of bugs in the game engine. Yes, you can argue some bugs aren't "cheats", but in this case, the vast majority of the playerbase agrees that exploiting these bugs is indeed damaging / against the spirit of the game.

Unit pulling, on the other side, is an intended game mechanic put into the game by ES, included with special running animations and all.

Categorizing what is or isn't "cheat" merely by what's possible without modifying game files is complete nonsense. In this way, you would actually allow spawning units/shipments and ban stuff like cinematics skip as a cheat.