Funny; as I write this, the Advantage chip ad is running at the top of the screen.
There's three issues going on here and its important to separate them out and discuss each one (or not, since dead horses begin to smell BAD after a while):
there's the issue of the paintball media's influence and its place in setting/maintaining/encouraging/whatever the moral or ethical tone of the industry.
Media influences the morality if for no other reason than its the 'medium' through which we all receive outside input about what's going on everywhere but in our own heads. We find out how other people think, gain a perspective against which to gage our own thoughts and feelings, blah blah blah.
The paintball media does, in my opinion, have the responsibility of being the moral 'watchdog' for the industry - not because it chooses to take on that role, but simply as an outgrowth of what it is. The media will be a primary influence whether it wants to be or not, so it has a responsibility to treat that influence professionally and seriously.
Then there's the issue of 'cheating' products. As several others have said, almost any piece of equipment can be subverted. That doesn't mean that they should be subverted and, in my opinion, it DOES mean that the manufacturer should provide users (by this I mean events, referees, rules-making orgs) with as much information as possible to assist in detecting and preventing that subversion - that's the manufacturer's moral responsibility.
I personally have two problems with the 'cheater' boards; one is the fact that the product, in most cases, is designed to be undetectable. This goes strictly against what I view as a manufacturers responsibility.
The second is in their advertising, where the primary focus of the ad is the cheating features of their product. I recognize it as the hype that it is (even if backed by performance), just as some companies push the sex envelope, others the bling envelope and still others the 'use this and play as good as me' envelope. Sometimes you go over the edge in advertising and again, from a personal perspective, these kinds of ads are over the line.
Finally, there is the issue of the acceptance of cheating as a part of the paintball culture.
Does it happen? Yes. Does it give teams an edge? Yes. Is it impossible to detect in some cases? Yes.
Does that mean we throw in the towel and let everything go? No. The emphasis ought to be on working with everyone to reduce it as much as possible. The encouragement ought to go to those who don't. The praise ought to be for those who stay within the rules.
Shoulda, woulda, coulda. We've now broken through to the abdominal cavity of that dead horse with our incessent beating and man, it stinks!
In summation: was 68 caliber right in refusing to take the ad? Yes, because they set the moral tone for their media outlet, they studied the issue, came to a decision, stuck to that decision and have produced a public argument that backs that decision; they have chosen to accept the responsibility that is thrust upon the media and to lead by example.
Was PGI right to take the ad? Yes, for exactly the same reasons as above; they thought about it. They recognized that in this case, the ad was saying more than just advertising yet another paintball product.
But regardless, we're debating the wrong issue. We should be looking for ways to create an environment in which such a product would never even come to market, much less be advertised. Someone who builds a product solely for cheating (and I hereby reject the argument that since the board is useful in other types of play its legitimate - we all know that its sole purpose in being developed was to allow gun cheats, pure and simple) ought to be reviled and run out of the industry. (The correction lies in physically identifying the board, but the proof of its cheating nature lies in the fact that if it were identified, there would be no demand for it.) Are there other non-chip products just like this one? Yes. ALL of them ought to be gone.
There's three issues going on here and its important to separate them out and discuss each one (or not, since dead horses begin to smell BAD after a while):
there's the issue of the paintball media's influence and its place in setting/maintaining/encouraging/whatever the moral or ethical tone of the industry.
Media influences the morality if for no other reason than its the 'medium' through which we all receive outside input about what's going on everywhere but in our own heads. We find out how other people think, gain a perspective against which to gage our own thoughts and feelings, blah blah blah.
The paintball media does, in my opinion, have the responsibility of being the moral 'watchdog' for the industry - not because it chooses to take on that role, but simply as an outgrowth of what it is. The media will be a primary influence whether it wants to be or not, so it has a responsibility to treat that influence professionally and seriously.
Then there's the issue of 'cheating' products. As several others have said, almost any piece of equipment can be subverted. That doesn't mean that they should be subverted and, in my opinion, it DOES mean that the manufacturer should provide users (by this I mean events, referees, rules-making orgs) with as much information as possible to assist in detecting and preventing that subversion - that's the manufacturer's moral responsibility.
I personally have two problems with the 'cheater' boards; one is the fact that the product, in most cases, is designed to be undetectable. This goes strictly against what I view as a manufacturers responsibility.
The second is in their advertising, where the primary focus of the ad is the cheating features of their product. I recognize it as the hype that it is (even if backed by performance), just as some companies push the sex envelope, others the bling envelope and still others the 'use this and play as good as me' envelope. Sometimes you go over the edge in advertising and again, from a personal perspective, these kinds of ads are over the line.
Finally, there is the issue of the acceptance of cheating as a part of the paintball culture.
Does it happen? Yes. Does it give teams an edge? Yes. Is it impossible to detect in some cases? Yes.
Does that mean we throw in the towel and let everything go? No. The emphasis ought to be on working with everyone to reduce it as much as possible. The encouragement ought to go to those who don't. The praise ought to be for those who stay within the rules.
Shoulda, woulda, coulda. We've now broken through to the abdominal cavity of that dead horse with our incessent beating and man, it stinks!
In summation: was 68 caliber right in refusing to take the ad? Yes, because they set the moral tone for their media outlet, they studied the issue, came to a decision, stuck to that decision and have produced a public argument that backs that decision; they have chosen to accept the responsibility that is thrust upon the media and to lead by example.
Was PGI right to take the ad? Yes, for exactly the same reasons as above; they thought about it. They recognized that in this case, the ad was saying more than just advertising yet another paintball product.
But regardless, we're debating the wrong issue. We should be looking for ways to create an environment in which such a product would never even come to market, much less be advertised. Someone who builds a product solely for cheating (and I hereby reject the argument that since the board is useful in other types of play its legitimate - we all know that its sole purpose in being developed was to allow gun cheats, pure and simple) ought to be reviled and run out of the industry. (The correction lies in physically identifying the board, but the proof of its cheating nature lies in the fact that if it were identified, there would be no demand for it.) Are there other non-chip products just like this one? Yes. ALL of them ought to be gone.
