the cheater player is unlike the unsportsmanlike player. the unsportsmanlike player merely violates the implicit rules of the game.
the cheater player transgresses the operational rules of the game. this is because the cheater player has the intense interest to win the game.
the leads to a paradox in the game: the cheater breaks the rules, but is still playing the game. they disrespect the authority figure of the game, but they still ave faith in the sanctity of the game. this makes the cheater player very similar to the dedicated player.
the spoil-sport player is a nihilist who denies the rules. the construction of the rules will not require their concealment into the game as they have no respect for the authority.
incorporating rule-breaking
game designers can sanction the violation of rules as part of the rule structure. that way, violations of the rules are punished with the game itself, so that the game can continue.
when sanctions are added to a game, this adds a new level of implicit rules. though this opens up a new dynamic: players may strategically transgress rules. they may accept short-term punishment for a long-term strategic or psychological advantage.
designing against rule-breaking
game designers possess a methodology in which playing a game means breaking, tweaking, and modifying the rules. that methodology being that the game designer must think like a cheater.
breaking paradigms
consider that the conventions and genres of game design are rules by which most designers "play." the innovators are those designers who manage to break the rules. games can only hold great promise if designers are bold enough to truly break the rules of the field.
this is harder than it seems, as to skillfully break the rules requires an intimate understanding of the rules.