244 réponses à ce sujet

[Gregor Wyrmbane]

 This thread is a place for the continuation of the discussion that took over the "Monk Kama build" thread.

It seems the base controversy isn't over actual cheating, but the definition of cheating. So, for the sake of discussion, let's use the "base" defintions found in the wikipedia.

CHEATING: Cheating refers to the overt or covert breaking of rules to gain advantage in a competitive situation. The rules infringed may be explicit, or they may be from an unwritten code of conduct based on morality, ethics or custom, making the identification of cheating a subjective process.

RULE: (as a noun) 1: A regulation, law, guideline.

Okay.... so how would you apply the concept of cheating to a single player version of NWN, using these definitions of the concept? 

[TSMDude]

Not to be an arse but why doe sit matter? Does the best score get a prize? It is like cheating at solitare...I dont do it and see it as stupid but then again that is MY game.

Someone wants to cheat at a SP Module go for it...knock yourself out. If someone does not and wants to complete as the author intended...awesome...go for it.

If someone wants to have relish on thier hot dog or mayo on thier fries...who am I to say no? Just keep your freaky condiments to yourself and I will keep going cheese on the dog, and ranch on the fries.

[Shia Luck]

Grrr, I wrote in the other thread b4 I saw this one. You could've put a link Gregor *cheeky grin*

Just going to quote myself seeing as it is an explanation of the argument. But first....

Lowlander wrote...
But in the context of computer games we should all know by now what cheating means.

This is a rhetorical argument trying to imply we are inferior to you. It has no validity at all.

Lowlander wrote...
There is no real confusion here, just a couple of zealous pedants trying
to use strict dictionary view of the language, without taking context
and common usage into account.

I took the time to
explain the argument. It is contextual and and relys on common usage. As I show, you are making an equivocation. In context, cheating in computer games is it's own special case.

How about you try to explain yours instead of
just being insulting all the time? I have been polite throughout the
discussion so far and don't appreciate being called a zealous pedant or
having an attitude which makes you sick, simply because I don;t agree
with you.

Shia Luck wrote...

MrZork wrote...

Once again, I am certainly not disputing that there is a system of definitions wherein those are sensible descriptions. But, continuing to apply your system of definitions to others' descriptions using other definitions does not show the insensibility of either.

To be fair, no one is explaining what is so wrong with Kail's logic either. In particular, imho, you need to find something wrong with this bit if you want to begin to prove a fallacious argument

Kail Pendragon wrote...
The SP player will always be in agreement with himself and that implies no rules breaking is possible.

...because I can't find fault with it.

MrZork wrote...
To wit, you have never demonstrated what's wrong with a system of definitions in which there are rules and they can be broken;

I can't answer that, if people want to apply rules for themselves, np. It's when they force those rules on others that there becomes a problem.I can suggest why the "it is cheating" argument is fallacious when
applied to SP games.

Firstly, every other definition and languageuse of the word "cheating" involves multiple people. Secondly, At least one of them is injured in some way by the cheat. Thirdly, it also involves a breaking of a contract or trust or rules that people have signed up to in one way or another.

With a diet the first condition is not fulfilled, But the second and third are. The third is fulfilled, simply because a diet is rules and to cheat on a diet you need to break those rules. As soon as you do, you lose the effect of the diet, the second condition. The similar rules in a computer game are things like left clicks on an enemy cause
an attack. You could also perhaps say rules are also things like fireballs do 1d6/lvl damage. I know we got given a toolset but a change to a spell affects all NPCs in the game and so I think that wouldn't be
included in your cheating definition? Perhaps it would?

This is why we feel it is not so bad as cheating on your partner or cheating someone out of something for example, because they fullfill all three conditions.

In an SP computer game none of those three conditions are fulfilled.

My problem with this discussion is that we are receiving quite a derogatory negative reaction which is appropriate to the third condition, with the meaning of a betrayal of trust. Yet there is no
contract or trust broken.

There's also the "you cheat yourself out of an experience" argument which is the 2nd condition. But the person saying this has no idea what the SP player would find a better experience. They only know on a personal level. I often advise people not to "cheat" on certain modules because the combat is a part of the story and they might get a better experience, but it is my opinion which they are free to ignore. I don't go screaming "CHEAT!" at them and
claiming they hurt me by ignoring my opinion.

I'd also suggest this is happening because people are mistanenly fulfilling the 1st condition in applying MP rules to an SP environment.

Ultimately,I'd suggest it's because people are confusing the main usage of the word "cheat" with the "cheating" that exists in computer games. It's called a fallacy of equivocation.

I have no problem if anyone wants to play their game that way. It's their game. They make the rules *cheeky grin*

have fun [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/smile.png[/smilie]

Modifié par Shia Luck, 04 mai 2011 - 11:43 .

[Gregor Wyrmbane]

Shia Luck wrote...
Grrr, I wrote in the other thread b4 I saw this one. You could've put a link Gregor *cheeky grin*

I was going too, but then I thought that might be considered cheating.  ;^)

[Shia Luck]

Lowlander wrote...

Shia Luck wrote...

Lowlander wrote...
But in the context of computer games we should all know by now what cheating means.

This is a rhetorical argument trying to imply we are inferior to you. It has no validity at all.

No it isn't. It is an assumption, that at this point (after decades of usage) everyone really does understand what it means to cheat in computer games. Do you think most people don't??? 

It is your  assumption that most (you said everyone... obviously not everyone does or there'sd be no disagreement)  people agree perfectly with you, and it is based on no evidence. It is also an argument against the idea that language is evolving and can change its meaning. Which is a problem for you I think.

I think most people have their own definition of "cheating" which varies widely and is very different in SP and MP play. You are the one arguing that Mp rules and SP rules are the same. For a start, I don't think that is a widespread opinion, and it is irrelevant anyway, because proving a philosophical position is not a popularity contest. It is a logical proposition.

I have been polite throughout the
discussion so far and don't appreciate being called a zealous pedant or
having an attitude which makes you sick, simply because I don;t agree
with you.

Lowlander wrote...
Why do you think that refers to you?

Lowlander wrote...

..., just a couple of zealous pedants...

Because couple = 2 and there's only Kail and I arguing that this is logical. Who is the other person you refer to if not me?

Lowlander wrote...
(and why is a Carly Simon song playing in my head now?) 

???  No idea. Whatever the reference is I don't get it. I suspect it is a put down of some kind but I will freely admit my suspicion and if I am wrong I will apologise. So, explain it please.

Lowlander wrote...
It doesn't. It refers primarily to someone who said "Cheating codes are not cheats" and secondarily at someone other than you. That should be kind of evident if you read my last post in the other thread.

Actually, as I tried to show in my post, it is exactly the essence of your last post in the other thread which helped me understand the issue. English is an evolving language and language can only be understood in context is the essence of what you said and I agree totally. It is my area of study. kail and I are showing you the way to a new meaning of cheating in the context of computer games in a very logical sense. You are confusing the meaning by not thinking clearly about the context and being distracted by traditional definitons of "cheat".

The advantage of kail's logic is it supports the fact that people can play an sp game anyway that gives them most fun. Anyone, including you. kail's logic allows for you to play the game you like. Your argument says we are wrong for using console commands or any sort of "cheat" in any situation. Your argument requires we conform to your rules or else get branded with a derogatory name/image.

I repeat my question from the other thread.

Shia Luck wrote...
Anyway, I got a question for everyone. If I
play HotU, for example, and I use console commands to spawn in low
level magic items and reduce my ability scores making my character much
weaker, have I cheated?

Have fun

I invite you to answer it and also invite you to explain your argument.... or you could try to counter my argument from the above post.

Modifié par Shia Luck, 05 mai 2011 - 01:34 .

[HipMaestro]

Problem is even if Kail's absolute stance about single player is contradicted, the determination of what constitutes a rule-breaking measure MUST be quantified, not by generalities but rather a concise list of exact operations that would fall into this category.  Just using the console to modify the gaming environment does not automatically imply any advantage, neither over the designer's intent or one's fragile self-esteem.  Getting pretty Freudian here, but you can fill in the blanks yourselves when you have time.

For an example, I'll use my own use of the console to illustrate the point.

Regardless of how high I set the gamma level, in very dark areas, it becomes next to impossible for me to play this game.  Some designers intentionally implement ambient darkness to attain some sort of scary, spooky atmosphere... and I can appreciate their efforts to stylize the content that way.  Unfortunately, due to the visual idiosyncrasies of this monitor and/or my own degraded visual acuity, I use the console to advance the game clock to 7AM which seems to be a playable lighting condition for me and lasts pretty long.  Of course, there is nothing I can do in dungeon areas where the lighting level is static so I am basically screwed and just skip through as quickly as possible.   In multiplayer, I just wait around until my party has completed their venturing into darkness until I can rejoin the questing.

One could contend that I have created an artificial lighting advantage for myself.  Fine. That is exactly what I have done. Do I feel as though I have cheated myself?  No.  Just the opposite.  I would be cheating myself of esperiencing the gameplay in the overdark areas if I did NOT use the console to manage a game-breaking situation.  If you would like to experience the same situation for yourself,  just throw a towel over the screen and try to play the game.  Lotsa fun, eh?

The point is:  there are very specific instances of gaining an unintended advantage and others that simply allow that single person parked in front of that computer screen to enjoy to the best of their ability. 

And that is the problem with boilerplate statements which attempt to assess a single concept.  If it is not quantified, the statement is nothing more than a personal opinion, one that holds little weight, little support.

Console codes are NOT cheat codes unless they are used specifically to gain an advantage over others in a competitive arena.  Only schizophrenics can compete with their other self.  

Modifié par HipMaestro, 05 mai 2011 - 01:32 .

[Shadooow]

HipMaestro wrote...

Console codes are NOT cheat codes unless they are used specifically to gain an advantage over others in a competitive arena.

Yes agreed.

Spawning items that are not available in that module is therefore smurfing.

Modifié par ShaDoOoW, 05 mai 2011 - 03:27 .

[Gregor Wyrmbane]

Lowlander wrote...

My definition of cheating in a computer game is subverting rules/exploiting bugs to gain an advantage over the way the game was intended to be played by it's designers.

.......

My turn:
....... It is the activity that counts, not which combination of letters is used to describe it.  Objecting to a specific word just seems completely ridiculous to me. Especially when it is the one commonly used to describe that activity.

So my (leadup and) question to you:  Suppose we give Kail his way and the world stops using  "cheating"  to describe changing the rules to give yourself advantage in computer games. Suppose we use "Smurfing"........
 And finally when Kail suggests importing better Kamas to  tweak a newbies character build, I say: "So you advocate smurfing and giving yourself uber gear to compensate?  ../../../images/forum/emoticons/sick.png"

What has changed???  IMO absolutely nothing.

You're right. Objecting to a specific word that's used to describe an activity is ridiculous. And if you changed the word to something else it would only change the word. A rose by any other name......

I can't speak for Kail, or any of the others, but I'll tell you what this all means to me. It isn't the fact that you use the word cheating to describe using the command console to enhance a single player incident of this game so it's more enjoyable for someone. What amuses me is your attitude about it seems to imply that because you don't do it you believe you are somehow morally superior to those who do. That's a level of arrogance and self-righteousness that's just laughable.

But by all means...... please continue. :^)

[Elhanan]

In a single player game, I would contend cheating is when some element outside the intended rules is used which then spoils the game for that indv Player. This would seem to be subjective, also based on the indv Player.

I like using a gold cheat on sessions after the first, as I tire of shopping treks and multiple visits to shops; rather be back in the story. For myself, the unlimited gold is not cheating as it enhances my own play, and does not detract from it. Some may see this as cheating if they were to do it themselves, as they have differing subjective standards.

And when it may become cheating for me is if the game has an unlimited resource such as a forge in which I may use that unlimited gold, and I do not restrict myself to puirchase, I then may spoil the game for myself by removing a challenge other than shopping; my original intended goal.

IMO, of course.

Modifié par Elhanan, 05 mai 2011 - 08:05 .

[cds13]

Well, all of this started, I think, by the request of a double kama build but in vanilla OC. I think that cheating in the OC is not that bad as it could be in other environments. Some time ago I posted about the difficulty system in the OC and how it worked better by placing more powerful enemies while you raise in level. Those enemies were raising in difficulty but were worth very little XPs.

What I would like to say is that cheating in SoU or HotU could subtract most of the gaming experience since the schemes in there are "fixed" while in the OC the game is someway more interactive and fits to your level. Now we can discuss about what's better or not in the OC or SoU or later but it would be off-topic.

I don't find any cheating in vanilla OC but the discussion, I think, is not if you can cheat or not whether where could be against your gaming experience. what's the point in slaughtering helpless kobolds with your 16th level fighter? :-)

[MrZork]

Grr. I hate making long posts, but I am sometimes unable to clarify subtle points briefly. Here goes...

[quote]Shia Luck wrote...

[quote]MrZork wrote...

Once again, I am certainly not disputing that there is a system of definitions wherein those are sensible descriptions. But, continuing to apply your system of definitions to others' descriptions using other definitions does not show the insensibility of either. [/quote]

To be fair, no one is explaining what is so wrong with Kail's logic either. In particular, imho, you need to find something wrong with this bit if you want to begin to prove a fallacious argument[/quote]
Actually, no. There is no need to explain the flaw in Kail's set of definitions because, as I have said repeatedly, I don't have a problem with him defining things his way, even though it means that rules - and, therefore, cheating - don't exist (meaningfully) in SP. It's not how the terms are always used, but if he wants to use them that way, it's fine. If you can point out where I am saying his definition is wrong or unusable in discussions, I will be surprised, because I have very deliberately not set out to show a problem with his definitions. To repeat, I am not saying that the set of definitions that he is using is logically wrong or unusable in discussing the game. I hope that is clear.

The issue is that he is saying that another system of definitions that allows the existence of rules and rule-breaking in SP must be logically wrong. Mind you, this goes well beyond a simple claim that he prefers a different set of definitions or even that his set of definitions is advantageous in some way; it is saying other definitions are logically wrong. Even if I were unable to find fault with his set of definitions, it would not bolster his claim about others' definitions. That is his burden to prove and I don't see where he has done it. Moreover, I am not even saying that he couldn't prove that claim. I have just pointed out something simple: Merely showing that statements made using the other definitions will not make sense with his definitions doesn't demonstrate a flaw in the other definitions.

[quote][quote]Kail Pendragon wrote...

The SP
player will always be in agreement with himself and that implies no
rules breaking is possible.[/quote]
...because I can't find fault with it. [/quote]
Once again, I am not trying to show that Kail's preferred definition of terms is logically wrong, so ignore the rest of this paragraph if you want. However, if one were trying to question that statement, one might explore whether people can act in ways that they haven't agreed to. It might be worth noting that making rules is usually a conscious choice, but breaking rules is often an unconscious one. The notion that, at every given instance, one is always acting in concert with what he knows intellectually he has agreed to or is trying to do is certainly a questionable notion. If I were advising anyone on how to critique Kail's system, I would suggest starting there. I might also suggest considering what "having a goal" and "failing to meet it" would mean in such a system...

But, coming back to the point, I was not questioning the internal logic of Kail's system of definitions. I was questioning his claim that a different system of definitions must be logically flawed.

Kail has defined a system in which only actions matter and the decisions one has made beforehand about actions have no bearing in evaluating the actual actions when they occur because the current act is assumed to override the previous thinking. I would agree that in that system, rules have no SP meaning because any standard for self-evaluation of an act is assumed to be simultaneously consonant with the act. Perhaps one cannot break one's own rules if one assumes that any action taken must have been in line with the rules when it occurred.

However, that system is merely one choice of definitions and assumptions; preferring it does not demonstrate that a different set of definitions and assumptions must be logically wrong. To re-use an example, consider the case where someone does not assume that what he does at every given instant overrides his past agreements or future evaluations of his actions. That person can say, "I set a rule for myself that I would play the OC without doing any XP farming. But, I cheated and killed ten mummies." Kail might say, "He didn't cheat because the no-farming rule didn't exist when he killed the extra mummies." And, using Kail's definitions, that may be true. But, that player can still say (for instance), "I am not using those definitions. My definition of rules doesn't change instantly; it is a conscious process over time and if I hadn't decided farming was okay before I did it, then I didn't change the rule by killing those mummies; I knew it was the rule and - maybe without thinking - I broke the rule." Now, I don't want to get too distracted by this example, but I don't see how one can say that player is logically wrong in his description or choice of definitions. One can certainly say that one prefers the other definition and the other description that results from it, but that's not the same thing as proving the player wrong. And, if, in attempting to demonstrate the player's description using the player's definitions is wrong, all one really does is show that his description is wrong using one's own preferred definitions, then nothing has been shown. Ultimately, we end up with a complex case of equivocation because we have just seen a statement evaluated using different definitions than those used in making the statement.

[quote][quote]MrZork wrote...
To wit, you have never demonstrated what's wrong with a system of
definitions in which there are rules and they can be broken;
[/quote]

I can't answer that, if people want to apply rules for themselves, np. It's when they force those rules on others that there becomes a problem.[/quote]
Okay. It's worth noting that people generally adopt rules because they think there will be some (often long-term) benefit to following them. But, though forcing others to follow one's own rules in SP games was never at issue in my posts, I can agree that it is often unproductive.

[quote]I can suggest why the "it is cheating" argument is fallacious when applied to SP games.

Firstly, every other definition and language use of the word "cheating" involves multiple people. [/quote]
Except that people commonly speak of "cheating" on diets, "cheating" oneself out of fun, "cheating" at the gym by doing a lazy workout, and so on and those uses of the term don't involve other people. So, I disagree that every use of the word involves other people. Sometimes it does and sometimes it does not.

[Of course, someone (not necessarily you) might claim that those uses are exceptions, but it wouldn't really wash to say that every use of a word involves multiple people... except for all those that don't. ;)]

[quote]Secondly, At least one of them is injured in some way by the cheat. [/quote]
Agreed. And the person doing the cheating can be the one ultimately disadvantaged by the cheating, as is the case in the examples.

[And, someone (not necessarily you) might claim that cheating means that someone other than the cheater is disadvantaged by the cheating. But, that's clearly not the case in the examples of cheating just given. And, once again, it would be circular to prove a point about use of a term ("every use of the word cheating involves someone else being hurt by the cheating") by saying that the exceptions aren't uses of the term.]

[quote]Thirdly, it also involves a breaking of a contract or trust or rules that people have signed up to in one way or another. [/quote]
Okay, but deciding to play by certain rules doesn't exclude that the agreement to do so be with oneself.

[quote]With a diet the first condition is not fulfilled, But the second and third are. The third is fulfilled, simply because a diet is rules and to cheat on a diet you need to break those rules. As soon as you do, you lose the effect of the diet, the second condition. [/quote]
And I would say that, per above, the first condition isn't a condition for cheating as commonly used.

[quote]The similar rules in a computer game are things like left clicks on an enemy cause an attack. You could also perhaps say rules are also things like fireballs do 1d6/lvl damage. I know we got given a toolset but a change to a spell affects all NPCs in the game and so I think that wouldn't be included in your cheating definition? Perhaps it would? [/quote]
Someone could call it cheating, depending on context. As I have stated before, I actually don't care if people modify the game for whatever purpose (presumably hoping to increase their enjoyment of it). I am not moralizing here. If you think I was arguing about the morality of cheating, you've got the wrong person.

[quote]This is why we feel it is not so bad as cheating on your partner or
cheating someone out of something for example, because they fullfill all three conditions. [/quote]
We are getting into a different area here: Whether cheating is "bad" or not. We could talk about this, but I think that is more about the pejorative or ameliorative connotation of the word than its direct meaning. Unless you are adding another criterion to the definition of cheating - that it must be a bad thing - then I will leave this issue alone.

[quote]In an SP computer game none of those three conditions are fulfilled. [/quote]
We disagree on that point. I think the latter two conditions are fulfilled and the first condition isn't a condition. I would agree, however, that the idea that cheating must be bad is not satisfied.

And, after this long discussion, I think that's what we are coming down to here: Some people don't like to use the word "cheating" to describe things people do in the SP game because cheating in many contexts implies that cheaters are doing something morally wrong. Frankly, that's why I try to avoid the term, even though I know that not every person who uses it intends that someone (for example) using a "cheat code" in a SP game must be a bad person. However, for my purposes, I don't want someone to think that I am moralizing when I comment on a build or a modification for someone's SP game, so I don't use the term cheat.

For better or worse, I didn't jump in on the "cheating" part of the earlier thread out of any concern about the moral implications of someone giving his character an uber weapon or whatever. I was initially interested in the impact on the value of the proposed builds and what the assumptions for suggesting a build should be. And, I should state that even my first post suggested that the player use Tony K's AI, which some might consider a cheat (though it can as easily make the OC more difficult as make it easier).

Later on, I was interested in the issue discussed earlier in this post: Seeing if a fairly commonly used gaming definition of a word could be shown to be logically wrong in the context of its use, and not just nonsensical when used in the context of a different definition. As someone not entirely unfamiliar with logic and language, I am aware what a challenging task that was likely to be and I would have been impressed to have seen it done here.

Anyway, this is already a ridiculously long post for me. I don't intend to be rude in not addressing the rest of your post, but it seems mostly to deal with the pejorative aspects of the word, which isn't something I posted about. I know these discussions rarely come to a clean conclusion, but I hope to have at least clarified somewhat the positions I am taking.


[quote]My problem with this discussion is that we are receiving quite a derogatory negative reaction which is appropriate to the third condition, with the meaning of a betrayal of trust. Yet there is no contract or trust broken.

There's also the "you cheat yourself out of an experience" argument which is the 2nd condition. But the person saying this has no idea what the SP player would find a better experience. They only know on a personal level. I often advise people not to "cheat" on certain modules because the combat is a part of the story and they might get a better experience, but it is my opinion which they are free to ignore. I don't go screaming "CHEAT!" at them and claiming they hurt me by ignoring my opinion.

I'd also suggest this is happening because people are mistanenly fulfilling the 1st condition in applying MP rules to an SP environment.

Ultimately, I'd suggest it's because people are confusing the main usage of the word "cheat" with the "cheating" that exists in computer games. It's called a fallacy of equivocation.

I have no problem if anyone wants to play their game that way. It's their game. They make the rules *cheeky grin*

have fun 
[/quote]

[Shia Luck]

Lowlander wrote...

, this so called logical argument , is looking more like rationalizing to avoid being called a cheat.

If you doubt the vailidity of the argument, try and disprove it. Don't just say "Oh it looks like + {insert insult}". If I am wrong, prove it.

Lowlander wrote...

Shia Luck wrote...
Anyway, I got a question for everyone. If I
play HotU, for example, and I use console commands to spawn in low
level magic items and reduce my ability scores making my character much
weaker, have I cheated?

My definition of cheating in a computer game is subverting rules/exploiting bugs to gain an advantage over the way the game was intended to be played by it's designers.

If you spawned in magic items at the beginning of HotU (where you have nothing) you would be cheating by my definition, but you wouldn't be cheating if you reduced your ability scores, you would just be weird. 

Thank you. You have just shown that all your own arguments about how using "cheat codes = cheating" are complete rubbish and even you don't agree with them.

Lowlander wrote...
My turn:

In the end I don't see how these semantic games matter at all. It is the activity that counts, not which combination of letters is used to describe it. 

No. You have just admitted that in your definition it is the effect of gaining an advantage, not the activity of cheating/using cheat codes/adjusting the environment, that counts.

Lowlander wrote...
Objecting to a specific word just seems completely ridiculous to me. Especially when it is the one commonly used to describe that activity.

I wouldn't care what word you used if you understood the meaning of it in context and didn't keep confusing it with the meaning that is applied in "cheating in MP". And seeing as someone else has said it better than I would, here is the reason I stay in this thread and keep proving your own arguments to be complete rubbish.

Gregor Wyrmbane wrote... What amuses me is your attitude about it
seems to imply that because you don't do it you believe you are somehow
morally superior to those who do. That's a level of arrogance and
self-righteousness that's just laughable.

Lowlander wrote...
So my (leadup and) question to you:  Suppose we give Kail his way and the world stops using  "cheating"  to describe changing the rules to give yourself advantage in computer games. Suppose we use "Smurfing". We now have "Smurf codes"....And finally when Kail suggests importing better Kamas to  tweak a newbies character build, I say: "So you advocate smurfing and giving yourself uber gear to compensate?  ../../../images/forum/emoticons/sick.png"

What has changed???  IMO absolutely nothing.

Well, you are still trying to be arrogant and morally superior over something you have no reason to  care about, so that hasn't changed. What has changed tho is all the negative connotations associated with the word "cheat" have disappeared. Which makes your complaining about how someone else plays their SP game look as ridiculous as it should.

Lowlander wrote...
In the end I don't see how these semantic games matter at all. It is the
activity that counts, not which combination of letters is used to
describe it. 

Saying the word used doesn't matter is to make no sense. Personally, I object to my gender being called **** and ho in RnB music, yet I have no problem with someone saying girl or woman. We have the N word and the C word which are objected to. Like the way those words are used, you attempted to insult someone with your use of the word cheat.

edit: the automatic censor objected to my use of 'female dog', so bioware must agree with me too *cheeky grin*

Modifié par Shia Luck, 05 mai 2011 - 11:43 .

[NWN DM]

Much ado about nothing.

[Shia Luck]

[quote]MrZork wrote...

[quote]Shia Luck wrote...

[quote]MrZork wrote...

Once again, I am certainly not disputing that there is a system of definitions wherein those are sensible descriptions. But, continuing to apply your system of definitions to others' descriptions using other definitions does not show the insensibility of either. [/quote]

To be fair, no one is explaining what is so wrong with Kail's logic either. In particular, imho, you need to find something wrong with this bit if you want to begin to prove a fallacious argument[/quote]

Actually, no. There is no need to explain the flaw in Kail's set of definitions because, as I have said repeatedly, I don't have a problem with him defining things his way,...... To repeat, I am not saying that the set of definitions that he is using is logically wrong or unusable in discussing the game. I hope that is clear. [/quote]

Very clear. I agree you do not need to prove anything. Anyone arguing against Kail's definition has to tho. I should have been a lot clearer in who my remarks were directed to. My apologies. (I see you have adopted the phrase "someone (not necessarily you)" which is something I should have done in my post.

[quote]MrZork wrote...
The issue is that he is saying that another system of definitions that allows the existence of rules and rule-breaking in SP must be logically wrong. Mind you, this goes well beyond a simple claim that he prefers a different set of definitions or even that his set of definitions is advantageous in some way; it is saying other definitions are logically wrong. Even if I were unable to find fault with his set of definitions, it would not bolster his claim about others' definitions. [/quote]

Well, I have to agree that he has not falsified any one else's argument. However, no one has presented an argument for a system with rules which he can attempt to falsify. There's just a lot of claims that rules exist and assumptions about what those rules are. (claims made not necessarily by you)

For example, for all my input on this, I have 'rules' about how I play in SP. I never change anything on the first playthrough so that I can experience the author's vision. But using the word 'rule' in this case is innaccurate I think. It's just a choice. There is no rule, just a habitual choice.  And there's very different connotations between the phrases "breaking a rule" and "breaking a habit". Someone calls it "breaking a rule", then they call the person doing it a cheat, then it starts getting really insulting.(I don't mean to imply you have done any of these things tho.)

[quote]MrZork wrote...
[quote]Shia Luck wrote...I can suggest why the "it is cheating" argument is fallacious when applied to SP games.

Firstly, every other definition and language use of the word "cheating" involves multiple people. [/quote]
Except that people commonly speak of "cheating" on diets, "cheating" oneself out of fun, "cheating" at the gym by doing a lazy workout, and so on and those uses of the term don't involve other people. So, I disagree that every use of the word involves other people. Sometimes it does and sometimes it does not. [/quote]

You are quite correct. My using the word "Every" was wrong. I should have said 'often'. I hope my explanation of cheating on a diet made that clear? It is after all a necessary condition in the phrases cheating on your partner or cheating someone out of something, which seems to imply at least two quite seperate definitions of the word.

[quote]MrZork wrote...
[quote]Shia Luck wrote..
[quote]Secondly, At least one of them is injured in some way by the cheat.
[/quote][/quote]
Agreed. And the person doing the cheating can be the one ultimately disadvantaged by the cheating, as is the case in the examples.

[And, someone (not necessarily you) might claim that cheating means that someone other than the cheater is disadvantaged by the cheating. But, that's clearly not the case in the examples of cheating just given. And, once again, it would be circular to prove a point about use of a term ("every use of the word cheating involves someone else being hurt by the cheating") by saying that the exceptions aren't uses of the term.] [/quote]

Agreed

[quote]MrZork wrote...

[quote]Shia Luck wrote..
[quote]Thirdly, it also involves a breaking of a contract or trust or rules that people have signed up to in one way or another. [/quote][/quote]
Okay, but deciding to play by certain rules doesn't exclude that the agreement to do so be with oneself.[/quote]

Well, in the case of cheating on a diet, or cheating at the gym I have to agree. I will also accept, for the sake of argument, that this general definiton can be applied to SP computer games.

If I break a rule in a diet I am no longer on the diet. The similar type of rule in a computer game is "left click on enemy = attack". As soon as I don;t follow that rule I am not playing the game. The idea proposed (not neccessarily by you) that there are rules which say "you must not use console commands to spawn in items" is the rule that is at issue tho. No one has provided any argument or evidence to show that we sign up to a set of rules like this when playing an SP game.

[quote]MrZork wrote...


[quote]Shia Luck wrote..
[quote]With a diet the first condition is not fulfilled, But the second and third are. The third is fulfilled, simply because a diet is rules and to cheat on a diet you need to break those rules. As soon as you do, you lose the effect of the diet, the second condition. [/quote][/quote]
And I would say that, per above, the first condition isn't a condition for cheating as commonly used. [/quote]

Ok, it is not a necessary condition, if, and only if, we say that all meanings of the word 'cheat' are the same. I'd argue for at least three different meanings appearing in this thread. Cheating yourself (diet, gym etc), cheating someone else (partner, mp player) and "cheating" in an SP game.

[quote]MrZork wrote...


[quote]Shia Luck wrote..This is why we feel it is not so bad as cheating on your partner or
cheating someone out of something for example, because they fullfill all three conditions. [/quote]
We are getting into a different area here: [/quote]

I don't think we are. Some people (not you *grin*) have been very vocal about how bad we are to "cheat" in an SP game.This is exactly the reaon the discussion started and is carrying on. I think it is relevant to you only because your definition allows for it to happen, not because you have done anything other than have a reasoned discussion.

[quote]MrZork wrote...



[quote]Shia Luck wrote..[quote]In an SP computer game none of those three conditions are fulfilled. [/quote][/quote]
We disagree on that point. I think the latter two conditions are fulfilled and the first condition isn't a condition. I would agree, however, that the idea that cheating must be bad is not satisfied.[/quote]

Could you explain who is injured by the cheat? (the 2nd condition)

[quote]Shia Luck wrote..
There's also the "you cheat yourself out of an experience" argument
which is the 2nd condition. But the person saying this has no idea what
the SP player would find a better experience. They only know on a
personal level.[/quote]

I am also unclear about what rules you think the SP player has signed up to (the 3rd condition). If they have an agreement with themself that they will use uber "cheated" weapons and they cheat in weapons then... what rule has been broken? Some people (not necessarily you) are using this and presupposing that the rules are things like "don't use console commands". I will be interested to hear what you think the rules are.

[quote]MrZork wrote...
And, after this long discussion, I think that's what we are coming down to here: Some people don't like to use the word "cheating" to describe things people do in the SP game because cheating in many contexts implies that cheaters are doing something morally wrong. [/quote]

Yip, that's basically what I am arguing against. A simple equivocation. I think Kail's argument is the most accurate one I have heard to describe what is happening in an SP game and it does preclude moral accusations of cheating in an SP game. I don't actually care what it is called so long as the negative connotations are not implied.

[quote]MrZork wrote...
Anyway, this is already a ridiculously long post for me. I don't intend to be rude in not addressing the rest of your post, but it seems mostly to deal with the pejorative aspects of the word, which isn't something I posted about. I know these discussions rarely come to a clean conclusion, but I hope to have at least clarified somewhat the positions I am taking. [/quote]

I should've been clearer about the 'not neccessarily you' in my previous post. My apologies for that again.

edit: fixing my quoting

Modifié par Shia Luck, 05 mai 2011 - 02:42 .

[Shia Luck]

Lowlander wrote...
Again you fail to grasp that my objection was situational. It was a new player asking for a build for the OC. We were comparing builds aimed at that new player, when he suggested smurfing to get some more powerful weapons.

That is lame in the extreme. Both because we were doing a build comparison,...

But we had already done the comparison and everyone had agreed that in that OC context, unarmed was better.

Lowlander wrote...

...  And potentially new player who may be led down the smurfing path to the detriment of his enjoying any challenge in the game.

Firstly, you assume it will be detrimental. Secondly, you are ignoring the fact that the OP wanted a dual wield kama build so you spent pages proving why unarmed is better and in terms of detriment  to enjoyment, if the OP wants to play kamas, why cant he?

I fail to see how a seperate suggestion to a player who wanted to play dual wield kamas, not unarmed, should be any concern of yours.

Lowlander wrote...
It wasn't about his private smurfing, it was when he brings into public and then other parties become involved.

Really?

Lowlander wrote...

I shouldn't be surprised in this
shortcut, instant gratifications, cheating is OK if you don't get
caught, society that so many just use cheat codes to pimp their
characters rather than deal with the constraints of the game. But this
Attitude makes me sick.  [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/sick.png[/smilie]

I
can't give myself an unfound weapon or it devalues the game for me...
Most people don't feel that way. Heck these days people are more proud
of themselves when the get good results from academic cheating:

http://www.cheatingc...mic-dishonesty/

I really can't see how you are the injured party if the OP spawns in some kamas for their SP game.

[WebShaman]

This already got decided long ago, on the old forums. In a closed SP game (meaning that there is only one person, and one person only playing, comparing, etc), there can be no cheating, with the possible exception that the person has split personalities (and can therefore cheat on themselves).

The reason for this is really simple : in a closed SP game, the Player themself decides on the rules that they play by. Since this is so, any and all departures from those rules are in reality just changes to those rules, decided upon by the Player themself as they are made. Obviously the Player is not doing this unawares, or unknowingly, to themself.

Therefore, there is no cheating in a closed SP game.

The moment that such an environment involves another (or others, as the case may be), then yes, the term cheating can come to be meaningful. That, however, is not a closed SP game environment. It would be what I would call an open SP environment, or competitive open SP environment.

Examples of this are SP games where scores, results, etc are compared to others from other Players and evaluated. In such an environment, rules become important as determiners and guidelines as to who was "the best", etc. As such, it is then possible for cheating to occur, obviously.

[Shadooow]

WebShaman wrote...

This already got decided long ago, on the old forums. In a closed SP game (meaning that there is only one person, and one person only playing, comparing, etc), there can be no cheating, with the possible exception that the person has split personalities (and can therefore cheat on themselves).

The reason for this is really simple : in a closed SP game, the Player themself decides on the rules that they play by. Since this is so, any and all departures from those rules are in reality just changes to those rules, decided upon by the Player themself as they are made. Obviously the Player is not doing this unawares, or unknowingly, to themself.

Therefore, there is no cheating in a closed SP game.

The moment that such an environment involves another (or others, as the case may be), then yes, the term cheating can come to be meaningful. That, however, is not a closed SP game environment. It would be what I would call an open SP environment, or competitive open SP environment.

Examples of this are SP games where scores, results, etc are compared to others from other Players and evaluated. In such an environment, rules become important as determiners and guidelines as to who was "the best", etc. As such, it is then possible for cheating to occur, obviously.

1) I dont really think that a fact that it has been decided in on old forums has any weight.

2) I dont agree. So the same thing done in the other environment is not the same thing? Either its smurfing or its not. A smurfer, smurfing in his game may want to persuade himself that he does not smurf because I don't know, but something. But from my point of view it will be always smurfing.

[WebShaman]

The fact (notice the word fact here) that is was decided before obviously has bearing on this case, because it sets a precedence.

And as Kail pointed out before, regardless of whether or not you agree, it is about the logic here. Since you cannot dispute the logic, it stands.

[CBrachyrhynchos]

Sure, it's cheating, or perhaps a better term for it would be meta-gaming. But then again, so are munchkin builds centered on spoilers for endgame monster types and equipment availability, and installing mods that eliminate some of the more tiresome aspects of the game.

I don't see anything wrong with any of that, and I'll gladly mod my way out of or cheese my way through encounters I just don't like. But it's not necessary for the OC or expansion packs and it does reduce or eliminate some of the challenges of those modules.

[Elhanan]

Again, one may cheat themselves if they violate the new rules that are self-imposed.

If one decides to use a cheat to add bonuses to an ability for a single encounter, and then leaves it intact for future encounters may be a cheater. If one chooses to use a cheat to add a bag of holding to aid inventory, then also includes Armor of Haste, Vorpal weaponry, and Epic accessories may be a cheater. Etc

*youngsters today*