Not being that familiar with the chess culture, it's weird to me that the distinction of "over the board" vs "online" seems to carry so much weight. Is it considered more acceptable to cheat online than "over the board"? I would think cheating is cheating.
Think of the distinction between "over the board" and "online" as kind of like the distinction between "NBA game" and "pickup game". Even that might be understating it. The levels of importance are radically different.
Also, think about how much harder it would be to cheat over the board. You might use hidden devices, accomplices, secret signals--compare that to an online game where all you need to do is switch over to another tab to check the engine. Cheating OTB requires a significantly greater degree of forethought, planning, and commitment--a persistent and repeated willingness to cheat that is way less acceptable than an online player getting tilted and looking at an engine. Still cheating, yeah--but at least it's not premeditated.
Online ratings are meaningless. But your FIDE rating, which derives from playing actual classical chess in-person, means everything. Attaining a good FIDE rating is the difference between being able to make a living off the game and not. Online ratings are in fact so meaningless that eligibility for major online tournaments is based on your FIDE rating, not your online rating.
It's the difference between cheating at a casual Poker game at home with no money staked and cheating at the World Series of Poker when serious money is at stake.
