This came up in discussion this week, I can save you a read if you like, the answer is no. There's more to it than that though. It's about where we draw the line, what the line actually is, and who has the chalk in their hand.
Breaking down cheating
In my usual spirit of oversimplification, I see there as being a few different levels of cheating:
| Level | Description | Example |
| 1 | Direct breach of the rules | Rosie Ruiz- Boston Marathon, Thierry Henry - France vs. Ireland |
| 2 | Interpretation of the rules to gain an advantage | Red Bull- blown diffusers, MIT blackjack team- Card counting |
| 3 | Getting outside help or support | Tour de France- team radio ban, Sponsorship in F1 (not the best link, sorry..) |
| 4 | Working entirely independently |
Which gives us some kind of scale of things. Ignoring the extremes of this scale the middle ground certainly leaves some room for discussion. Certainly educators we would position themselves as encouraging the behaviour at level 2 and 3 in the classroom. Both Bloom and Dreyfus have things to say about adapting, modifying, and the influence of mentors that we've all encountered many times before. It would be bold to suggest that these things should be allowed in sport, but certainly it brings into question what we would consider cheating.
Applying this kind of logic to the walk-through game guide we have to argue that it fits in at level 3. It's no different to having an experienced tennis coach showing you what to do, or getting to practice a Grand Prix circuit in the simulator before you get to the track.
Who are we cheating?
The second question this brings up is about who exactly we are cheating. Ignoring the high profile national sporting examples, we can say this is a question of motivation.
Everybody has different personal goals, and that impacts on our definition of cheating. If my aim is to get to Level X in Warcraft figuring out every stage without reading a manual or asking for help clearly the walk-through is. If my goal is to get to Level Y in the same game faster than anybody else I started playing with at the same time perhaps it isn't.
Again we can look to education parallels for this. In order to pass my science exam I am advised to buy the correct book from the exam board. If I remember that stuff I'll more than likely pass. This is the expected behaviour, not a way to cheat to the GCSE. I might feel personally that I have memorised the content rather than actually learnt it, but in terms of the actual rules of the science game I'm all good.
Potentially more of a comment on the assessment system, but it highlights how our perception of the activity colours our judgement.
The impact of rewards
his is a wider topic to come back to in a later post in more general form. Are the rewards available having positive impacts on motivation, and my desire to cheat?
n the sporting world we have plenty of examples where the desire for the reward was enough to push people into the wrong side of our chalk line. In the gaming world does the status of being a Level Z player motivate us to use methods that we might not consider to be entirely solo efforts? In the education sector we all have our own opinions on when influence becomes copying becomes cheating. How much are the systems we use to reward contributing to this?
Other aspects
To follow in extension posts- what is the value of writing a walk-through? What can we learn from the social networks growing up alongside games to act as guides and walk-throughs?
Image source- Hand of God courtesy of Paolo Camera,