Anyone have Moomba's Trainer?

[Moldran]

You seem to have skipped all my arguments concerning 'bugs' that turn into features through patches, and the other way round. Oh well.

Because I did not disagree with them and I don't think they are important for the question we are discussing. Below, too, I will concentrate on what I think is the key point.

#4: As I get from what you explained, duping and god mode can happen accidently, too. These are just bugs. Not cheats.

Duping happens accidentaly very often, god mode can hardly happen accidentaly.
These bugs become cheats[1] in the moment you abuse them to gain an advantage in the game. The difference between a legit player and a cheater[1] is that a legit will not make use of an item he duped accidentaly.

Again: abusing a bug cannot be cheating, since it actually and very concretely is in the game.

Well, if you apply your personal definition of the word 'cheating', which seems to contain 'nothing that is allowed by the original game code can ever be cheating', then the above statement is correct. But that is not how the rest of the world has agreed to use the word. I wonder where you got that definition from. I never heard it before.
I won't argue that your definition is wrong, because definitions cannot be right or wrong. But they can be more or less useful. I find your definition much less useful than my one. And I am also pretty sure that my one is the commonly accepted one, which adds alot to its usefulness.

Of course, if you insist, you are free to use the word 'cheating' in the Fragbait way only. I doubt it will get you any far, though.

Last b.n.l.: I read the wikipedia 'definition', and it, too, mentiones the phrase: 'that had not been intended by the developer in that way'. So I ask again: Without a patch, a statement, a revision or a declaration in the game that the feature is actually a 'cheat', how should the user know that it wasn't intended that way?

One very useful tool in recognizing what the developers intended is called common sense. For example, common sense tells me that duping was not intended to be possible in D1 and that Flash was not supposed to deal only very low damage to targets in certain positions. Some questions are a bit more tricky and cannot be answered easily by common sense (I think that CC damage and maybe also FB damage fall into this category). Typically, using these 'cases of doubt' is not considered cheating by most players. Another important aspect is the actual effect of the bug on the gameplay, as Lemming has noted.
As a side note, I think one very good aspect of the Wikipedia article is that it does not only speak of 'what the developer intended', but of the 'normaler Spielverlauf' (normal/usual/expected course of the game).

I also think that the Wikipedia article is in line with my definition for a reason: Because that is the commonly accepted definition in computer gaming. If you think it is not, you should start a discussion about it on the Wikipedia page. The fact that noone has done that so far supports my assumption.



1:
Unless otherwise noted, the term 'cheat' was used according to the 'Moldran definition' in this posting ;p