←back to thread

World conker champion found with steel chestnut, cleared of cheating

(www.theguardian.com)
424 points notamy | 8 comments | 15 Oct 24 03:12 UTC | HN request time: 0.015s | source | bottom
Show context
umanwizard ◴[15 Oct 24 03:33 UTC] No.41844648[source]▶
Is this game well-known enough in Britain and Ireland that readers will know what on earth is being alleged just from reading this article? Or are you expected to have to google it?

Apparently it’s a game where you take turns swinging a chestnut on a string and trying to hit the opponent’s chestnut and break it. Yes, I can see how a steel fake chestnut would be an advantage here, though I’m amazed it wouldn’t be instantly obvious to even a casual observer that the look and sound were wrong. So maybe I’m still missing something.

replies(39): >>41844679 #>>41844680 #>>41844692 #>>41844710 #>>41844745 #>>41844790 #>>41844893 #>>41844956 #>>41844990 #>>41845090 #>>41845138 #>>41845146 #>>41845586 #>>41845601 #>>41845668 #>>41845691 #>>41845701 #>>41845708 #>>41845741 #>>41845780 #>>41845876 #>>41845950 #>>41845966 #>>41846137 #>>41846168 #>>41846302 #>>41846427 #>>41846459 #>>41846461 #>>41846479 #>>41846565 #>>41846594 #>>41846647 #>>41846716 #>>41846833 #>>41846898 #>>41847062 #>>41847270 #>>41847710 #
bee_rider ◴[15 Oct 24 03:47 UTC] No.41844745[source]▶
> The 23-year-old said: “My conker disintegrated in one hit, and that just doesn’t happen … I’m suspicious of foul play and have expressed my surprise to organisers.”

It seems the suspicious was pretty quick.

replies(2): >>41844775 #>>41846734 #
umanwizard ◴[15 Oct 24 03:51 UTC] No.41844775[source]▶
It’s just crazy that someone would cheat at something so low-stakes with such a high probability of being caught, but I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised.
replies(6): >>41844839 #>>41844891 #>>41844920 #>>41844954 #>>41846103 #>>41846342 #
aniforprez ◴[15 Oct 24 04:04 UTC] No.41844839[source]▶
People cheat on online cooperative computer games like Helldivers with almost no rewards for being performatively better other than a few imaginary in-game points. People can be weird about the smallest things
replies(2): >>41844861 #>>41844862 #
bee_rider ◴[15 Oct 24 04:09 UTC] No.41844861[source]▶
Cheating at a PvE game like Helldivers is basically a victimless crime (I don’t do it, but I can see why people would).
replies(2): >>41844899 #>>41845888 #
a_t48 ◴[15 Oct 24 04:17 UTC] No.41844899[source]▶
Cheating with only your friends - yeah, mostly. Cheating with randos sounds like it would lead to boring gameplay.
replies(1): >>41844972 #
wcfields ◴[15 Oct 24 04:34 UTC] No.41844972[source]▶
Like, you can cheat at Solitaire, but why?
replies(1): >>41845026 #
shermantanktop ◴[15 Oct 24 04:45 UTC] No.41845026[source]▶
Hey, dopamine is dopamine. This ain’t stolen valor or a plagiarized thesis.
replies(1): >>41846788 #
1. smolder ◴[15 Oct 24 09:43 UTC] No.41846788[source]▶
I think it's a special kind of person that gets a kick from "winning" at something that's not a challenge. You might as well write "winner" on a t-shirt in marker and wear it.
replies(3): >>41849510 #>>41850980 #>>41853969 #
2. lazide ◴[15 Oct 24 15:18 UTC] No.41849510[source]▶
Speaking of which [https://www.thepopculture.co/products/need-room-full-mirrors...]
3. bee_rider ◴[15 Oct 24 17:37 UTC] No.41850980[source]▶
I don’t really know that it is cheating to get a “win” label. Maybe it is just a distraction or fun flashing lights.

Do you remember being a child and just playing with action figures? It was harmless and fun. I wonder where we lose that ability to just chill and have fun without a challenge.

Actually, a lot of people seem to just spend a lot of time watching TV, which is also fun without challenge.

replies(1): >>41854611 #
4. shermantanktop ◴[15 Oct 24 22:57 UTC] No.41853969[source]▶
Solitaire is a game, and many people see games in terms of gaining or losing either social status or self-image. But for single-player games:

- maybe "winning" is a special case of "completing"

- "playing a game" in a competitive sense is totally different than "playing" in an undirected sense; e.g. playing with Legos or playing with a cat. Or playing with matches for that matter.

- for me, i'd much rather write "winner" on a t-shirt and wear it than prance around in a t-shirt that I legit competed for and won, and I need the world to know that about me. What kind of fragile ego does that? I'm more likely to see that as a "special kind of person."

replies(1): >>41854594 #
5. smolder ◴[16 Oct 24 00:48 UTC] No.41854594[source]▶
> But for single-player games

We were talking about people cheating at multiplayer co-op in this thread. I don't think people use rule-breaking cheats in multiplayer games (competitive or otherwise) purely for the story in the game, or they could go watch a TV show/movie or read a book instead and get a better story. (Or watch someone else play it!)

> for me, i'd much rather write "winner" on a t-shirt and wear it than prance around in a t-shirt that I legit competed for and won, and I need the world to know that about me. What kind of fragile ego does that? I'm more likely to see that as a "special kind of person."

These aren't the only two options. You can also just challenge yourself for the satisfaction of overcoming challenges and not wear a t-shirt. I think when people cheat at something where the outcome is broadcast there is almost always an element of status seeking.

replies(1): >>41858286 #
6. smolder ◴[16 Oct 24 00:50 UTC] No.41854611[source]▶
The comparison to TV watching or playing pretend is apt, though I don't see how cheating at multiplayer games is an improvement over those. If you cheat in something like helldivers 2 (what my comment is meant to address) that can also spoil other peoples' experience who actually want a challenge. Besides, nowadays you have the option of just watching someone else play a game to completion on twitch or youtube, which is quite popular.
7. shermantanktop ◴[16 Oct 24 12:26 UTC] No.41858286{3}[source]▶
I was responding to

> Like, you can cheat at Solitaire, but why?

replies(1): >>41861364 #
8. smolder ◴[16 Oct 24 17:07 UTC] No.41861364{4}[source]▶
Yeah, that's fair and what you said is reasonable. I was changing the context back to multiplayer to make my point about that.