Quote:
Originally Posted by Raavak
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Being associated with a guild chock full of cheaters is EXTREMELY questionable.
|
"Chock full" is a loaded phrase. While there unquestionably was a substantial amount of accounts suspended. Your claim is hyperbolic. As far as the "frequent forum flyers" investigation is concerned, no one guild has had a substantial amount of individuals suspended. And, while I agree with Hasbinbad when he said, with respect to cheaters: "They do reflect on - but do not represent - the rest of an organization", I think it's worth adding that you cannot control everyone in your guild. In fact, it's impossible.
To be sure, you can take measures to ensure that you do not associate with cheaters, you can implement a policy, you can even enforce that policy, but at the end of the day people lie, decieve and cheat anyway. I'm not condoning what happened and I'm certainly not saying that one should not try, because I think those types of policies work and do have a deterrent effect on those within your guild. But, the fact remains that there will be outliers. Which, as far as I know, that's what each guild has been associated with: outliers. They do not represent the guild as a whole.
Nevertheless, the argument is somewhat hamstrung by the fact that an officer was suspended, which also makes it more difficult to claim ignorance of the impropriety. However, the fact remains that you cannot control the actions of others and I certainly do not support the idea that one guild or one person should be condemned because they associated with someone who was caught cheating.
Could they be be condemend? Sure, it's all contextual. Should the cheaters be condemend: absolutely. But, the son does not inherit the sins of the father, if you will. And, I subscribe to the belief that you need more evidence than mere association in order to condemn.