How many of you play games online, but have a physical board right next to you?

The over- riding rule for all signs and limits is -

What is safe under the present conditions. The example is spot on as perhaps under certain circumstance it is unsafe to stop and no citation is made. Good one . The basic rule allows for interpretation by law enforcement/ judge to evaluate individual cases. Quite similar to “no outside assistance of any kind” as written in the Fair play rules . That is all that is said leaving matters for deliberation and evaluation by the proper authority.

A trivia question forPG, perhaps not too far off topic.

The CA Motor Vehicle guidelines/codes are very strict about littering the roads. It specifically says 2 distinct things may be discarded on the highways. 
Which 2 ? One is quite easy - the other would take a lot of guessing if not known.

Nonsense. You really think both parties must agree before a rule is written? Absurd thinking. This site makes it’s own rules about chess. They do not ask for any agreement of any kind from 2nd parties when making their rules . Agreement is only asked for later - for the 2nd party to abide by their rules. They can make any rule they want- but won’t make any rule if they can’t enforce it. This has been clearly explained over and over- the practice is undetectable and therefore unenforceable. It has everything to do with it.

I have no idea. But I do know a real board with real pieces is not outside assistance of any kind. Isn't that the whole point of a dgt board? That's allowed, right?

It’s a disadvantage. It is of assistance  if used inappropriately. Hence a guideline is stated- if used - do not use it for analysis. Such a rule can not be written as there is no way to know if someone is abusing the 2nd board or not. 

Some tournaments don't allow physical boards. The computer board is fine with me.

Yep. TD’s can establish protocols for their tournament. If it is rated - a wise decision.

If it was written in the rules - 2nd physical boards are OK they would not have that latitude.

I Have said it before and I will say it again.

Using a physical board inappropriately in live chess is cheating.

Using a physical board appropriately in live chess is not cheating.

It all comes down to moral courage, doesn't it!

Ladies and gentlemen, please stop overthinking this!

@BadBishop There is nothing in sport that requires rules to be verifiable. I'll stick with my sailing example as I'm more familiar with the rules. I cant find my copy of the rule book so cant cite it, but if you wish to verify my claims you will have little trouble find details online. If an offshore sailor in a single handed race (no other crew on board) hits a racing mark in fog and at night ( no on can see it) the official racing rules require them to make a penalty turn or withdraw from the race. There is no way of knowing if the mark was hit or the penalty turn was taken. It is an official, international rule recognised by all national sailing associations, Olympics, etc. It requires on honesty of competitors. Many sports that are not referred or umpires have such rules which are not guidelines.

For an even absurder example 😁 The Strange Last Voyage of Donald Crowhurst by Nicholas Tomalin and Ron Hall is a great read.

Mark - but there is possibly a way of knowing. 
It is in the public domain. If the race sponsors were so inclined- the race could be viewed and tracked by satellite by example or GPS tracking - which is very common. It is possible to track and record the boats movements and whereabouts.

In the privacy setting of your home - CC has no way of verifying the use of a 2nd board and any abuse made. ( unless viewed on camera). They can however detect engine use - hence a “rule” can be made against it. For a 2nd board - a guideline is made about expected ethical use- but no rule this way or that .

The boats lone skipper may think no one is the wiser- and to his surprise be disqualified- being clueless about the organizers “methods” of detection. Rules of the road are verifiable. The technology may not be in place for every case - but it is very possible to do so.

And where is it said that the definition of “outside assistance” has a singular definition- that of “cheating”? 

With respect to boats, the technology isnt capable of what you are suggesting. It would not be possible to detect a boat brushing up against a racing mark. I happily accept that there are many examples were rules are not implemented because it is not possible to detect infringement, this is a common and pragmatic approach. However, I disagree that Verification (the ability to independently observe an infraction) is a necessary property of a rule, which I believe is what you are arguing, unless I'm mistaken. We'll have to agree to differ.

Any rule/ law can be written. But once out to a validity test in court - it is rejected/ dismissed out of hand and deleted from the books and sometimes laughed out of court. How do ? Because the law is Unenforceable. The makers of the law thought they could regulate behavior by making a law governing stuff they can not possibly control. This most always centers around privacy issues. Issues that occur in the public domain are verifiable- it is possible to find evidence if looked hard enough.

“Chess.com has repeatedly addressed this question, and it is perfectlybokay to use a physical board, even though one extremely vocal individual disagrees” -poster

This is incorrect. Nowhere does CC put in writing the practice is  perfectly OK - Period. They have said the practice is OK - 

If .... with a caveat of do not make analysis.

It is not always OK as pointed out . T D’s have the latitude to stipulate - no use of a 2nd board in their tournament. It can’t be a rule per say as it can’t be enforced - but the guideline can be made. 
Because it’s not in writing does not mean it is not OK. It is most all the time - if not abused. But this will not be put in writing. Cases are individual- to be deliberated and evaluated in its own merits. Writing such a rule would leave  it open each person’s interpretation - which is often incorrect. The poster insists that my position is - the practice is against rules - not OK to do. This is entirely false and I think intentionally misleading.

You have just proved my point. 

Stop overthinking this!

You are making claim the practice revolves solely about the question of whether it is “cheating” or not. Not the case.

Again - your example is possible to detect !

The methods used will not be revealed to the general public or contestants.

How could it possible by detected - this brushing up against a racing mark ? I can count a dozen ways  — simplest would be sensors- either on the boats hull or the mark..

You are allowed to plug in a DGT board into chess.com as they have a setting for it. What is the difference between using a DGT board and an Analogue board? 

No difference . DGT boards and their approved use have placed the issue more in a grey area than before. Connecting directly to the chess playing interface is new technology- which of course becomes traceable.