100 réponses à ce sujet

[Kail Pendragon]

Aye.

[Skildron]

The only thing you have proven is that you both tend to think along post-modern lines. That in itself may not be a bad thing. I would like to continue this discussion but my grasp of English language seems not refined enough to do so - and an answer in German would not do on these boards. So, for the time being, end this, but not because I consent to your arguments but because I can not voice my dissent in English pointed enough.

Greetings
Skildron

PS: Oh by the way, the point of the garden of eden tale is not the mythical tree, but the decision to be like god - the same thing you do when you use DebugMode only console commands in single player games.

[Kail Pendragon]

Skildron wrote...

The only thing you have proven is that you both tend to think along post-modern lines. That in itself may not be a bad thing. I would like to continue this discussion but my grasp of English language seems not refined enough to do so - and an answer in German would not do on these boards. So, for the time being, end this, but not because I consent to your arguments but because I can not voice my dissent in English pointed enough.

Greetings
Skildron

Your dissent (or my consent) is irrelevant to the fact it is not possible to cheat in SP. Same as it didn't matter what people thought (and still think) about the shape of the Earth, the Earth retained its shape.

PS: Oh by the way, the point of the garden of eden tale is not the mythical tree, but the decision to be like god - the same thing you do when you use DebugMode only console commands in single player games.

No matter consolle commands, the single player is already the god of his own world.

[Frith5]

You have a consensus among you two. So, go play with yourselves. Who cares? Don't claim consensus when the opposition realizes it is futile to try to discuss an issue with you because of rudeness, crudity, unswerving (and crazy) logic, and using your own statements as a basis for 'fact'. You are so certain there is no higher authority, so why should YOUR opinion be a higher authority than anyone's? You, sir, have deceived yourself.
Goodbye.

Modifié par Frith5, 17 septembre 2011 - 10:33 .

[Kail Pendragon]

Frith5 wrote...

You have a consensus among you two.

At the least. Others have recognized the fact there can be no cheating in SP here on these boards, but of corse and as typical of the party refusing to use logical reasonign (because of an incapacity to do so?) facts are being ignored.

So, go play with yourselves. Who cares? Don't claim consensus when the opposition realizes it is futile to try to discuss an issue with you because of rudeness, crudity, unswerving (and crazy) logic

A clear sign the opposition has no arguments, calling the only sound logic presented here as crazy. Up until now the "opposition" has yet to made any argument at all.

and using your own statements as a basis for 'fact'.

A clear sign of your unintelligence of the matter and inability to understand plain simple english and logic. The basis for this fact are themselves facts, not our own statements. Our statements are statements of fact. 4+4=8; that's founded in maths. There can be no cheating in SP; this i sfounded in the definition of cheating and simple logic.

You are so certain there is no higher authority, so why should YOUR opinion

Ours is no opinion, but just a statement of fact. Differently from you, we offer no opinion. Hence there's nothign to debate, but for those uneducated enough to think a fact is an opinion. Go back to your flat earth and suffocate under the pressure of your arrogant ignorance and unintelligence.

be a higher authority than anyone's? You, sir, have deceived yourself.

Which is not possible. But you are too obtuse to get it.

Goodbye.

Didn't you say that already? Goodbye and good riddance. Idiots are better lost than found.

Modifié par Kail Pendragon, 17 septembre 2011 - 10:56 .

[Skildron]

Kail Pendragon wrote...

Skildron wrote...

The only thing you have proven is that you both tend to think along post-modern lines. That in itself may not be a bad thing. I would like to continue this discussion but my grasp of English language seems not refined enough to do so - and an answer in German would not do on these boards. So, for the time being, end this, but not because I consent to your arguments but because I can not voice my dissent in English pointed enough.

Greetings
Skildron

Your dissent (or my consent) is irrelevant to the fact it is not possible to cheat in SP. Same as it didn't matter what people thought (and still think) about the shape of the Earth, the Earth retained its shape.

But, other than the fact of the round earth - why do you have to be so polemic, btw. - the cheat or not cheat in SP is not a fact but a statement or opinion.

PS: Oh by the way, the point of the garden of eden tale is not the mythical tree, but the decision to be like god - the same thing you do when you use DebugMode only console commands in single player games.

No matter consolle commands, the single player is already the god of his own world.

And that is where you are wrong and where all this misunderstanding comes from: You can only be god in a world you create. If you enter a world created by others, regardless of SP or MP or whatever, you submit to rules and laws set by others. There always is a higher authority in a world not your own. You can cheat this authority or break their rules - that is your right in your own single player game, and there will be no one to sue you or judge or sentence you for it. It is your decision to do so, but it can be called cheating or whatever term comes near, because you can never be highest authority in a world not created by you - like it or not.

QED
Greetings
Skildron

[Kail Pendragon]

[quote]Skildron wrote...

[quote]Kail Pendragon wrote...

[quote]Skildron wrote...

The only thing you have proven is that you both tend to think along post-modern lines. That in itself may not be a bad thing. I would like to continue this discussion but my grasp of English language seems not refined enough to do so - and an answer in German would not do on these boards. So, for the time being, end this, but not because I consent to your arguments but because I can not voice my dissent in English pointed enough.

Greetings
Skildron[/quote]Your dissent (or my consent) is irrelevant to the fact it is not possible to cheat in SP. Same as it didn't matter what people thought (and still think) about the shape of the Earth, the Earth retained its shape.[/quote]
But, other than the fact of the round earth - why do you have to be so polemic, btw. - the cheat or not cheat in SP is not a fact but a statement or opinion. [/quote]Wrong. It is a fact one cannot cheat in SP. One cannot cheat or deceive himself either, they ar ejust figures of speech, not supported by logic. And I'm not polemic, I'm rather stating an drestating and restating the truth, since the heralds of falsity are so obstinately spreading their misinformation around.

[quote]
[quote][quote]PS: Oh by the way, the point of the garden of eden tale is not the mythical tree, but the decision to be like god - the same thing you do when you use DebugMode only console commands in single player games.[/quote]No matter consolle commands, the single player is already the god of his own world.
[/quote]
And that is where you are wrong and where all this misunderstanding comes from: You can only be god in a world you create. If you enter a world created by others, regardless of SP or MP or whatever, you submit to rules and laws set by others.[/quote]Wrong. I do not submit to anything at all. I do as I wish, and so does any single player.

[quote]There always is a higher authority in a world not your own. [/quote]Which is not the case of SP. In SP the world is the player's world under his control.

[quote]You can cheat this authority[/quote]One cannot cheat himself and that's the only authority in SP.

[quote]or break their rules[/quote]There are no rules to break in SP.


[quote]that is your right in your own single player game[/quote]Wrong, it is impossible to cheat in SP period. There's no other authority (not simply no higher but no other!) but the player.

[quote]and there will be no one to sue you or judge or sentence you for it.[/quote]Since there's nothing to judge or sentence. There's just the player and his world.

[quote]It is your decision to do so, but it can be called cheating[/quote]Only if someone changes the definition of cheating. I guess that selling something for a high price can be called stealing but that does not make it really stealing. OR when we say that we are beating a dead horse, are we gonna beat a dead horse for real too?

[quote]or whatever term comes near[/quote]The term that comes closest is "playing the game as the player sees fit to him"

[quote]because you can never be highest authority in a world not created by you - like it or not.[/quote]The player is the only authority in SP. There's nothing else but the player. He picks something up ( a module) and does with it whatever he wants without any limiots. Including reverse engineering it and altering the source code (if he's capable of that of course). Nothing can ever constitute cheating in SP (although reverse engineeiring it might constitute a violation of the EULA, but that's not SP anymore). The only limits are the player's capabilities and the physical constraints imposed by reality. Like it or not.

[quote]QED[/quote]You have proven nothing but you unintelligence of the matter at hand

[quote]Greetings
Skildron[/quote]See ya.

[Skildron]

Just to avoid lots of quotes: It seems to me that we have entirely different views. As I said, you can do whatever you want, even try your shrewd logic on me. And to point it out once more: I, when picking up a module, feel obligated to obey the rules the creator of the module set as best as I can. If that implies e.g. rest restriction - which I hate because I usually play casters of some kind - I follow them, even though I could effortlessly alter the scripts.

And it seems to me that I am not the only one feeling this way - or this discussion would long ago have died down.

Why does the term "cheat" imply that I want to forbid anyone doing to his liking? And by the way, are you aware, that semi-official or hidden game commands are called "cheats" at least in Germany, even if they are recommended by game creators when you get stuck or something?

And once again, the only thing you prove is that you cannot respect another approach to a topic, if it goes against your grasp of logic. I laid out my understanding of playing and following rules and restrictions, you laid out yours - can we now leave it at that or is it your lifelong goal to convert anyone to your grasp of game reality?

Greetings
Skildron

Modifié par Skildron, 17 septembre 2011 - 11:42 .

[Kail Pendragon]

Skildron wrote...

Just to avoid lots of quotes: It seems to me that we have entirely different views. As I said, you can do whatever you want, even try your shrewd logic on me. And to point it out once more: I, when picking up a module, feel obligated to obey the rules the creator of the module set as best as I can. If that implies e.g. rest restriction - which I hate because I usually play casters of some kind - I follow them, even though I could effortlessly alter the scripts.

And that's your right to do so. You choose to play an unaltered module (which can be said to be the way the author suggests to play that module).

And it seems to me that I am not the only one feeling this way - or this discussion would long ago have died down.

I do the same that you do, generally speaking. I play a module the way it is, use no console commands, no leto, no extra gear etc. And yet, I know I cannot cheat even if I did just the opposite.

Why does the term "cheat" imply that I want to forbid anyone doing to his liking?

I don't think it does. The term cheat simply implies deceipt and deceipt is not possible in SP.

And by the way, are you aware, that semi-official or hidden game commands are called "cheats"

Lingo. Women are sometimes called chicks for the matter... is there anybody thinking they are really young chickens?

at least in Germany, even if they are recommended by game creators when you get stuck or something?

And once again, the only thing prove is that you cannot respect another approach to a topic, even if it goes against your grasp of logic.

I simply do not respect arrogant and stubborn unintelligence. Nor falsehood.

I laid out my understanding of playing and following rules and restrictions, you laid out yours - can we now leave it at that or is it your lifelong goal to convert anyone to your grasp of game reality?

Until there will be someone spreading falsehood and misinformation, I'll be there reminding everybody of the truth. To the best of my capabilities. And stating there can be cheating in SP is simply false. Hence I'm staying.

Modifié par Kail Pendragon, 17 septembre 2011 - 11:53 .

[Failed.Bard]

Kail Pendragon wrote...

Skildron wrote...

And by the way, are you aware, that semi-official or hidden game commands are called "cheats"

Lingo. Women are sometimes called chicks for the matter... is there anybody thinking they are really young chickens?

From FreeDictionary.com:
3. A computer application, password, or disallowed technique used to advance to a higher skill level in a computer video game.


  Admittedly, it likely doesn't carry the same weight as the same definition from the Oxford English dictionary would have, but it is still a valid, and publicly accepted definition.
  Having said that, using a further definition from the same source (2. To violate rules deliberately, as in a game: was accused of cheating at cards.), using said "cheat" isn't "cheating" in SP, unless the player themself had originally stated, even to themselves, that they wouldn't.  While the need for deception is contested between sources, to "cheat" still requires rules in place that are being broken, even if they're self-imposed ones.

Modifié par Failed.Bard, 18 septembre 2011 - 12:51 .

[_six]

Out of curiosity, Kail... if you agree this is in large part just a linguistic conflict, why did you resurrect a 2 month old topic whose only actual question had already been perfectly answered just to point it out?

Just sayin'

Modifié par _six, 18 septembre 2011 - 04:09 .

[_Guile]

_six wrote...

Out of curiosity, Kail... if you agree this is in large part just a linguistic conflict, why did you resurrect a 2 month old topic whose only actual question had already been perfectly answered just to point it out?

Just sayin'

That reminds me of a story, one about a cruel necromancer who cast an evil spell on a cleric, who's ended up dead in the trash behind a tavern with the only thing left functioning was his wits (his skull in this case), tied to his corpse, the priest (or what was left of him anyway, his skull) was kicked down a drain to end up in the Undermountain only to be found by a hapless adventurer...  The skull could chat away, non stop, but alas, you got bored rather easy of this pesky skull/thick head...

Cool story bro.. .

Modifié par _Guile, 18 septembre 2011 - 05:39 .

[Kail Pendragon]

_six wrote...

Out of curiosity, Kail... if you agree this is in large part just a linguistic conflict, why did you resurrect a 2 month old topic whose only actual question had already been perfectly answered just to point it out?

Just sayin'

It's not a linguist conflict, it's a lack of understanding on th epart of those who say it's possible to cheat in SP with to cheat/cheating being common english and not some specific slang/lingo. As I said 4+4=8 in our common base 10 math... of course 4+4=10 in base 8 an dso what? If "cheating" = using "cheat codes" (all lingo) then evidently using cheat codes constitutes "cheating".. but that' snot we are talking about, we are talking about ordinary english meaning of cheating. So, until the naysayers won't stop putting up their strawman arguments I'll be here opposing them (assuming I have the time to do so... otherwise I'll eventually find time in the future).

And to answer your question, just out of chance (I was looking for something else) I noticed that thread and I saw the misconception of the OP about what is cheating; I felt compelled to correct it.

[WebShaman]

to "cheat" still requires rules in place that are being broken, even if they're self-imposed ones.

This is crucial here. Now, if someone is playing by themselves with their own self-imposed rules (not like there can *BE* any others if someone is truly playing alone here), then it comes down to "can someone break their own rules"?

To which the answer is "no, not logically, because at the moment that the player in question DECIDES to go against the self-imposed rules, at that moment she makes a change to the self-imposed rules, re-making them into the new self-imposed rules (because this is being done deliberately and consciously). THEN follows the action that would normally be against the self-imposed rules, but cannot be, because the self-imposed rules now allow for that action."

It is quite clearly simply not possible for someone to break their own self-imposed rules in their Closed SP Environment. Instead, the rules are changed to reflect the new action.

How can you take an action without first deciding to? You would not then have control over your body or will.

[WebShaman]

I think just about anyone knows what I mean here. You start off playing a game with the "self-imposed rules" (insert whatever rules one likes) and then at some point in the game, for whatever reason, one deviates from this.

Now, you did not deviate from the rules unwillingly, unknowingly, and certainly not against your own will here! You make a conscious decision to do so, for whatever reason. It matters not what the reason is here. AT THAT POINT you have made a conscious decision to change the rules, and then you act upon that. You are not breaking your own rules here - you are in fact changing them.

This is because you are the only authority here, and the only one which needs to reach a consensus. This you do the moment you decide to deviate from the rules you self-imposed upon yourself. You then self-impose the new, altered rules to replace the old rules.

As this happens before the actual action (which would be required to "break" any rules, obviously), it is absolutely impossible for someone to actually break their own self-imposed rules in a Closed SP Environment, as they have actually changed the rules to include the action before it takes place!

Thus, there is no breakage possible here. One is still following self-imposed rules. albeit different than those before.

[Shadooow]

WebShaman wrote...
 "can someone break their own rules"?

To which the answer is "no, not logically, because at the moment that the player in question DECIDES to go against the self-imposed rules, at that moment she makes a change to the self-imposed rules, re-making them into the new self-imposed rules

This is only your reasoning of breaking your rules. First in order to play with your own rules you must at least think about them.

A regular player that start playing some NWN SP module, just start playing and do not think about rules. Then this player doesnt play by his own rules.

Also, an example what happened to me: I set my own rules where I disabled myself a loading feature. Then I died so after some considering I decided to break my rules for this one case as I would come to this moment again. But then I continued in the same rule. So from your explanation I have changed rules in order to continue and then changed them back? Riddiculous.

[WebShaman]

A regular player that start playing some NWN SP module, just start playing and do not think about rules. Then this player doesnt play by his own rules.

You see, this is why you should not participate in logical discussions. OF COURSE this player is playing by their own rules! In this case, the rules that they play by are whatever they let happen - but that is *still* their own rules. Nobody is there to impose any other rules on this player, or there to force that player to play by any other rules. Should this player choose to depart from these rules, at that point the player is making changes to the rules (agreed upon self-imposed rules).

The player can freely choose to play any way they wish to.

This does not require awareness of this, it is self-evident.

And no, this is not "only" my reasoning of breaking rules - it is the logical explanation thereof. You have already demonstrated that you are unable to follow such discussions. Therefore, I do not expect you to offer anything in light of that.

Yes, you changed your rules (not broke them) to accomplish something that you felt needed to be done (decision, action), then changed them back to what you wished after you had accomplished what you felt needed to accomplish (decision, action). Nothing ridiculous about it.

1+1=2. Rules decided on, changes decided on, action. You did not take an action without first deciding to do so. As you decided to do so, you changed what you could do, making it possible to do it. Then you actually did it.

You never once "broke" your own rules. You changed (modified) them to allow for the action as you saw fit, and then changed them again.

As you should be able to plainly see, there is absolutely nothing ridiculous about it. We, as humans, do these sort of things all the time. It is only that it is extremely rare that we find ourselves in a Closed SP Environment in RL (real life). Therefore, there is almost always a higher authority and set of rules that we have either agreed to, or had imposed upon us.

Were you absolutely alone, with no hope of ever coming into any sort of contact with any human again, or any other intelligence (and they you), you would be in a Closed SP Environment of a sorts. Then you would only be restricted by the natural laws of nature, really. Those you could not get around, at least, not all of them (assuming you had access to resources, dependingly).

However, in a game like NWN, where you are playing alone and not comparing results of that game with anyone else, you are in a Closed SP Environment (of which you still hold to be "impossible", strangely enough).

I have explained this many times before. As such, there is no reason to keep explaining this to you. Others grasp this, you do not seem to be able to, for whatever reason(s). If you post something that needs addressing, I will, but until then, I see no reason to keep explaining the same thing to you over and over.

Your acceptance or understanding is not required here for the logical reasoning to be sound.

[Shadooow]

A little metaphor:

WebShaman: I just finished Doom 1 in less than 4hours!
Shadooow: You cheated...
WebShaman: No I played by my own rules!
Shadooow:

this is my end on the cheating discussion

Modifié par ShaDoOoW, 18 septembre 2011 - 04:33 .

[Kail Pendragon]

Didn't you promise that already?

You see, poor little Shadow, cheating implies deceipt.That's why it has a negative connotation to it. And one cannot deceive himself. The making/altering rules thing is a rather artificial construction. There are no rules at all, there's just the player playing the way he sees fit. Wanting to see rules established and then altered is just a way to complicate things, they are just part of a fictional outsider's perspective having the need to see a pattern in the player's behaviour and constituting said behaviour as respecting some rules. But in reality the player is just playing the way he sees fit. And even if there were rules to be broken, deceipt would be avoided and hence cheating.

[Failed.Bard]

Kail Pendragon wrote...

Didn't you promise that already?

You see, poor little Shadow, cheating implies deceipt.
...

  It may imply deceipt, but in the context used in most definitions as pertaining to games, it doesn't require it.

From Dictionary.Reference.com:
5. to violate rules or regulations: He cheats at cards.
From Merriam-Webster.com:
1 b[/i] : to violate rules dishonestly <cheat at cards> <cheating on a test>

From TheFreeDictionary.com:
2. To violate rules deliberately, as in a game: was accused of cheating at cards.
From MacmillamDictionary.com:
[intransitive] to behave dishonestly, or to not obey rules, for example in order to win a game or do well in an examination.

Fromj YourDictionary.com:
2 to behave dishonestly, as at games or on an examination.


From OxfordDictionary.com:
1 [no object] act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage: she always cheats at cards.[/i]


  That's the definitions of cheat, as it pertains to games, from every dictionary site on the first page of my search for "cheat definition".  I'm curious what specific definition of it that you're using to further your argument that deception is required, and if it's even one that pertains to the topic of cheating within a game.

[WebShaman]

No, I would not be informing you of my Doom 1 game at all. Why would I want to? There would be no point in doing so.

This is where you are hopelessly lost.

Now, if you asked me if I had played Doom 1, I might answer to that. If you then inquired about specifics of my game, I might reply to that as well, dependingly.

So it would be more like this :

Shadooow: Hey Web, have you played Doom 1?
WebShaman: Why do you ask?
Shadooow: Oh, I just wanted to know how long it took for you to finish it.
WebShaman: Well, I probably play differently than you do - I finished my game in 4 hours.
Shadooow: 4 hours??!! How?
WebShaman: *lists what he did to modify his Doom 1 game (re: the rules that I play by)* That is how.
Shadooow: But...but that is cheating! You did not play with the rules that I did!!!
WebShaman: We (meaning you and I) never agreed beforehand to play by the same rules, therefore it is not cheating. And I am not comparing my results with yours - you asked about my game, and I answered. I have not broken any rules, whatsoever, so it cannot constitute cheating.

Good to hear that this is the last I will hear from you on the cheating discussion.

[WebShaman]

Dishonestly, or violate rules deliberately is obviously deception. Another is being deceived by the dishonesty or deliberate violation.

Meaning, that someone is being deceived here (Dishonesty and violating rules deliberately not being possible to oneself). You need a 2nd person (also known as the third person perspective) to be able to accomplish this.

Note that the dishonesty or deliberate violation does NOT have to be successful to be an attempt at deception.

One could be caught doing so.

Modifié par WebShaman, 18 septembre 2011 - 07:57 .

[Failed.Bard]

WebShaman wrote...

Dishonestly, or violate rules deliberately is obviously deception. Another is being deceived by the dishonesty or deliberate violation.

That's your opinion.  I'm curious as to the facts being disputed here.  Dishonesty might, again, imply deceit, but it doesn't require it, and a deliberate violation of the rules can be quite flagrant and open.
  Since it's sunday, turn on an american football game.  Some holding calls you see might be involve deception, the player trying to "get away with it" by concealing the act, others might involve simply tackling the person to keep them from their goal.  Both are the same violation of the "holding" rule, one involved deception, one didn't, but neither required it.

[Kail Pendragon]

Failed.Bard wrote...

Kail Pendragon wrote...

Didn't you promise that already?

You see, poor little Shadow, cheating implies deceipt.
...

  It may imply deceipt, but in the context used in most definitions as pertaining to games, it doesn't require it.

From Dictionary.Reference.com:
5. to violate rules or regulations: He cheats at cards.
From Merriam-Webster.com:
1 b[/i] : to violate rules dishonestly <cheat at cards> <cheating on a test>

From TheFreeDictionary.com:
2. To violate rules deliberately, as in a game: was accused of cheating at cards.
From MacmillamDictionary.com:
[intransitive] to behave dishonestly, or to not obey rules, for example in order to win a game or do well in an examination.

Fromj YourDictionary.com:
2 to behave dishonestly, as at games or on an examination.


From OxfordDictionary.com:
1 [no object] act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage: she always cheats at cards.[/i]


  That's the definitions of cheat, as it pertains to games, from every dictionary site on the first page of my search for "cheat definition".  I'm curious what specific definition of it that you're using to further your argument that deception is required, and if it's even one that pertains to the topic of cheating within a game.

Dishonesty. So deceipt is implied. Thank you for your help.

[WebShaman]

I can see the case in football (or insert sport here - Soccer comes to mind) of deliberately causing a foul (cheating, as it may) for a tactical reason, sure - and I can also accept that one is not trying to get away with it (meaning that the violator in question is not trying to get away with it). However, there *is* a deception going on - the one against the rules.

One is clearly deceiving the intent of the rules for benefit. Especially in Soccer one sees this very often - tackling (taking down) someone that is in danger of making a goal outside of the goal lines (so as not to receive an 11 meter penalty). One prevents a goal from being made, taking probably a yellow (but perhaps a red) card in return.

To me, this is the absolute worst type of sports rules deception possible - where the penalties for the breaking of rules (cheating) does not match what has been broken (in this case, an almost sure goal).