100 réponses à ce sujet

[Failed.Bard]

Kail Pendragon wrote...

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

[other definitions removed just to save space - FB]

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

  I said it was implied, I even bolded it.  However, implying something doesn't make it a fact.


From OxfordDictionary.com:
verb (implies, implying, implied)[with object] indicate the truth or existence of (something) by suggestion rather than explicit reference:salesmen who use jargon to imply superior knowledge.
[/i]
  Imply applies equally to thruthful and false statements.  It proves nothing in itself implying something.

Now, the definition of Dishonest (since dishonestly is derived from dishonest, not dishonesty), also from OxfordDictionary.com:
adjectivebehaving or prone to behave in an untrustworthy, deceitful, or insincere way:he was a dishonest hypocrite prepared to exploit his family[/i]intended to mislead or cheat:he gave the editor a dishonest account of events[/i][/list]  Since dishonest also means "intended to cheat", and "behaving or prone to behave in an untrustworthy, or insincere way", only two of the five uses of the word from the source you used involve deception.

  Since most people associate a dishonest person with one with one who lies, the implication of deceit will be there for most people, but that doesn't make it a fact.

[Failed.Bard]

WebShaman wrote...

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).

  While I certainly agree with you that in your example, the player has chosen to violate the rules in the way most advantageous to them, you haven't offered up anything to support your stance that "the rules" are an object you can deceive.  In fact, your primary argument on the case of deception earlier was that there had to be another person involved for there to be deception.

  Oddly enough, OxfordDictionary.com (which I'm using since Kail also referenced it, making it at least somewhat agreed upon as a valid source for definitions), disagrees with you:

Deceive:
verb
[with object]

• deliberately cause (someone) to believe something that is not true, especially for personal gain:I didn’t intend to deceive people into thinking it was French champagne[/i]
• (of a thing ) give (someone) a mistaken impression:the area may seem to offer nothing of interest, but don’t be deceived[/i]
• (deceive oneself[/b]) fail to admit to oneself that something is true:it was no use deceiving herself any longer — she loved him with all her heart
  [/i]

[/i]  You'll notice though, that even though that definition supports the argument that a person can deceive themselves, it doesn't necessarily support the way that it was being used in the case of cheating.  Whether the players in a SP module are playing under a set of rules or not is their decision, I'm not sure self deception is possible in that instance.

[Kail Pendragon]

Failed.Bard wrote...

Kail Pendragon wrote...

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

[other definitions removed just to save space - FB]

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

  I said it was implied, I even bolded it.  However, implying something doesn't make it a fact.


From OxfordDictionary.com:
verb (implies, implying, implied)[with object] indicate the truth or existence of (something) by suggestion rather than explicit reference:salesmen who use jargon to imply superior knowledge.
[/i]
  Imply applies equally to thruthful and false statements.  It proves nothing in itself implying something.

Now, the definition of Dishonest (since dishonestly is derived from dishonest, not dishonesty), also from OxfordDictionary.com:
adjectivebehaving or prone to behave in an untrustworthy, deceitful, or insincere way:he was a dishonest hypocrite prepared to exploit his family[/i]intended to mislead or cheat:he gave the editor a dishonest account of events[/i][/list]  Since dishonest also means "intended to cheat", and "behaving or prone to behave in an untrustworthy, or insincere way", only two of the five uses of the word from the source you used involve deception.

  Since most people associate a dishonest person with one with one who lies, the implication of deceit will be there for most people, but that doesn't make it a fact.

Dishonesty's meaning is linked above. Acting dishonestly means acting with dishonesty and that means acting in a deceitful manner. Thank you for your useless attempts at muddling the waters with your strawman arguments.

After all what to expect from a failed bard but failure in his capability to communicate (well realized by failure in comprehension capabilities)?

Modifié par Kail Pendragon, 18 septembre 2011 - 10:41 .

[Failed.Bard]

Kail Pendragon wrote...

Failed.Bard wrote...
...

Dishonesty's meaning is linked above. Acting dishonestly means acting with dishonesty and that means acting in a deceitful manner. Thank you for your useless attempts at muddling the waters with your strawman arguments.

  Nice to see that the moment you're presented with facts, and the actual meanings of words that you've been using incorrectly, whether through a lack of understanding or a deliberate attempt to mislead people, that you resort to insults.
 
  Acting dishonestly means to act in a dishonest manner.  Some might argue that's a matter of semantics, but the fact remains that rather than dispute a fact based argument, using a source you yourself have quoted, you resorted to trolling.
  That in itself says more about the validity of your position than anything I ever could.

  Edit:  Heh, you edited your post while I was replying, and still resorted to trolling.

Modifié par Failed.Bard, 18 septembre 2011 - 10:47 .

[WebShaman]

Obviously one cannot deceive a "thing", unless, of course, we are talking about some sort of AI.

We need a thinking being to be able to deceive it.

So other than the referee, no, I guess there would be no deception involved. And if the cheating was done in full view of the referee, no deceit is being done. No-one was deceived, was intended to be deceived, or could have been.

So yes, you are correct here - there are cases where cheating can occur without deceit being involved.

[Failed.Bard]

WebShaman wrote...

Obviously one cannot deceive a "thing", unless, of course, we are talking about some sort of AI.

We need a thinking being to be able to deceive it.

So other than the referee, no, I guess there would be no deception involved. And if the cheating was done in full view of the referee, no deceit is being done. No-one was deceived, was intended to be deceived, or could have been.

So yes, you are correct here - there are cases where cheating can occur without deceit being involved.

  That was my point.  Not that it doesn't usually involve deceit, but that "cheating" doesn't require it.

  As for the rest of it, especially your earlier point on the nature of self-imposed rules in SP, I'd have to agree with you.  Your point that the rules change as soon as the player decides to act outside them makes sense, and I haven't seen anything presented that would adequately counter it.

  I suppose that means overall I agree with your position, in that a player can't cheat in a "closed single player" environment, since there aren't any rules they've agreed to follow that they can break.
  The need for an element of deception to be "cheating" was never a valid one, since the primary, and by the definitions I found consensus, definition of cheating with regards to games is that the player deliberately breaks "the rules", of which there are no binding ones in closed SP.

[WebShaman]

That does make sense and follows.

*nods*

Nice one!

Good thing I did not define cheating with deceit attached to it!

[Failed.Bard]

WebShaman wrote...

That does make sense and follows.

*nods*

Nice one!

Good thing I did not define cheating with deceit attached to it!

  Well, from a scientific perspective, you can't prove a negative, so "You can't cheat in closed SP" isn't a proveable statement using that approach.
  My position was, since cheating doesn't require deceit, which both available facts and both our examples support, it's possible to "cheat" by the violation of self-imposed rules, which your argument countered effectively enough to invalidate.

  I supposein that sense, that you can cheat in closed SP, by violation of self-imposed rules, has been disproven (as opposed to the opposite being proven), which you did in an intelligent and respectful manner I commend you for, considering the general tones of these threads.

[WebShaman]

*bows*

Well, it has been a very lively one, hasn't it?

I prefer to remain in the realm of respectful conduct, where I can. Most on these boards are worthy of such respect IMHO.

Besides, when attempting to remain factual and logical, using reason instead of rhetoric, it helps not to become too emotional, at least for me it does.

I feel that you have conducted yourself in a similar fashion. Much like some others, like QSW, for example.

Carry on!

[Kail Pendragon]

Failed.Bard wrote...

Kail Pendragon wrote...

Failed.Bard wrote...
...

Dishonesty's meaning is linked above. Acting dishonestly means acting with dishonesty and that means acting in a deceitful manner. Thank you for your useless attempts at muddling the waters with your strawman arguments.

  Nice to see that the moment you're presented with facts, and the actual meanings of words that you've been using incorrectly, whether through a lack of understanding or a deliberate attempt to mislead people, that you resort to insults.

Nice to see you have nothing to bring to the table but strawman arguments. I linked the meaning of dishonesty above and you chose to conveniently ignore the simple fact that dishonesty means acting in a deceitful manner. And you also conveniently ignore what to imply actually means... or you are just not capable of grasping it. I dunno.

  Acting dishonestly means to act in a dishonest manner.  Some might argue that's a matter of semantics, but the fact remains that rather than dispute a fact based argument, using a source you yourself have quoted, you resorted to trolling.

Trolling? Calling your strawman arguments for what they are is no trolling, differently from what you are doing here by purpousefully ignoring the meaning of the words used. Acting dishonestly means acting in a dishonest manner and that, oh look up there in the oxford dictionary, is acting in a deceitful manner. But I already said this. So you are either not capable to understand it or unwilling to. In either case, your point is mooth.

That in itself says more about the validity of your position than anything I ever could.

Given what you have shown here, a dead man could say more (and more sensed things) than you could ever hope to. Your unintelligence of the matter and ignorance (purpouseful or not) is under everyone's eyes to see.

  Edit:  Heh, you edited your post while I was replying, and still resorted to trolling.

I see you are unintelligent enough to not be able to understand sarcasm. That says a lot about your capacity (or better say lack thereof) to discern a linked meaning of a word.

[NWN DM]

Dead topic just won't die.

[Kail Pendragon]

Failed.Bard wrote...

  That was my point.  Not that it doesn't usually involve deceit, but that "cheating" doesn't require it.

To cheat meaning is to act dishonestly] and both dishonestly and dishonesty are defined as acting deceitfully. So where is it that cheating does not require deceipt? Oh yeah, I know, in your delusional and uneducated mind, right.

As for the rest of it, especially your earlier point on the nature of self-imposed rules in SP, I'd have to agree with you.  Your point that the rules change as soon as the player decides to act outside them makes sense, and I haven't seen anything presented that would adequately counter it.

  I suppose that means overall I agree with your position, in that a player can't cheat in a "closed single player" environment, since there aren't any rules they've agreed to follow that they can break.
  The need for an element of deception to be "cheating" was never a valid one

The dictionary and the common English meaning of the term beg to differ. Sure, in your own version of the English language all is possible.

since the primary, and by the definitions I found consensus, definition of cheating with regards to games is that the player deliberately breaks "the rules"

The primary definitions of cheat say other than that. And the example reported is even one related to a game (of cards). Oh look. It's about deceit (since dishonesty is about deceit).

cheat
verb1 [no object] act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage:she always cheats at cards


Thank you for once more bringing unfounded claims to the table.

Modifié par Kail Pendragon, 19 septembre 2011 - 12:37 .

[Kail Pendragon]

Failed.Bard wrote...


  Well, from a scientific perspective, you can't prove a negative, so "You can't cheat in closed SP" isn't a proveable statement using that approach.
  My position was, since cheating doesn't require deceit,

A falsity. As shown above.

[Failed.Bard]

Kail Pendragon wrote...

Failed.Bard wrote...


  Well, from a scientific perspective, you can't prove a negative, so "You can't cheat in closed SP" isn't a proveable statement using that approach.
  My position was, since cheating doesn't require deceit,

A falsity. As shown above.

  Troll posts x 3.

  The only thing you've proven, is that you don't understand the maning, or common usage of "imply", and that you'll link to irrelevent definitions in a deliberate attempt to be deceitful, and ignore valid definitions of words that don't fit your narrow view of them.

  Since WebShamen and I have already finished our discussion, and you've shown no capacity to present an intelligent argument, I'll do what most others do with you Kail, and stop feeding the troll.

[WebShaman]

It is true that one cannot prove a negative using the Scientific Method.

Therefore, one would have to prove that one could cheat in a Closed SP Environment to invalidate the proof that I gave (or, if you will, definitions for what constitutes playing in a Closed SP Environment).

No-one has been able to prove this, however.

So perhaps I should edit my statement to be :

Until proven otherwise, there is no cheating in a Closed SP Environment.

[Kail Pendragon]

Failed.Bard wrote...

Kail Pendragon wrote...

Failed.Bard wrote...


  Well, from a scientific perspective, you can't prove a negative, so "You can't cheat in closed SP" isn't a proveable statement using that approach.
  My position was, since cheating doesn't require deceit,

A falsity. As shown above.

  Troll posts x 3.

Is that an introduction to your post right?

  The only thing you've proven, is that you don't understand the maning, or common usage of "imply", and that you'll link to irrelevent definitions in a deliberate attempt to be deceitful, and ignore valid definitions of words that don't fit your narrow view of them.

Oh sure, linking the primary definition of a word, which usage is related to a game of cards too, is just irrelevant.

You, poor failed being, are deliberately ignoring the primary and relevant meanings of the words used. Cheating is acting dishonestly to gain an advantage and acting dishonestly is acting deceitfully as the proper definitions of the words do clearly show.

Since WebShamen and I have already finished our discussion

One based on false definitions of cheat, as shown.

and you've shown no capacity to present an intelligent argument

I simply presented the meaning of cheat, dishonesty, deceit as reported by the oxfor dictionary. Facts which your strawman arguments and blatantly false statements cannot in any way deny.

I'll do what most others do with you Kail, and stop feeding the troll.

Good excuse for failing to bring any argument to the table but strawman ones, ignorance of the meaning of words even when linked for you, and avoidance of the truth presented and linked. What can I say, good riddance failed one.

[WebShaman]

Hmmm...this took me awhile to chew through.

Two (or more) players have agreed to a set of rules. One cheats. The one being deceived is the other player(s). Even if they are aware of the cheat, there is still deception here - because everyone agreed to the set of rules, but one (or more, dependingly) did not hold to them. Intentional or not, this is deceitful. If I say I will do one thing, but then do another, I am being deceitful to those I have informed.

This player (or players, dependingly) has (have) deceived the others by breaking the rules all have agreed to abide by.

Thus, the others are being deceived here. This is especially so in the case of someone who is meaning to cheat (purposefully cheating) - meaning that they had no intention of holding their agreement to the set of rules agreed upon by all.

The cheating does not have to be hidden to still be deception.

In the case of the soccer player, the one being deceived is the opposing player that is on the receiving end of the cheating. Since everyone involved knows the rules and has agreed upon them beforehand, and being that there is a higher authority present to "enforce" them, when one purposefully deviates from these rules (cheating), the deceived one(s) are those who are being cheated on.

So, in our fictional soccer game, the stormer has the ball, and is closing in on the opposing goal. There is no other defender between him and the goal. The other player closes in on the stormer from behind. As the stormer nears the penalty area, the other player deliberately fouls him before entering the penalty area, so that he cannot shoot a goal, thus preventing it. Obviously a deliberate action, the referee can give the fouling player yellow or red, dependingly.

But the almost sure goal was prevented.

A clever tactic? Sure.

But it is against the rules, and the stormer in question was deceived here. Both were supposed to be playing by the agreed upon rules, and in those rules it is not allowed to foul - and especially not in the case outlined above. One did not, however, honor these rules, and was, therefore, being deceitful towards the other.

[WhiZard]

Looked into etymologies, and for the word "cheat" this does seem to be an American versus British split off on the word (with British sources of course not well considering American English etymology). It seems that the 1640 "swindling and defrauding" notion completely overtook British usage even fairly early on, while American usage still used fragments of the original notion of "falling" from rules or regulations.

The in depth search did lead me to a free and lengthy etymology listing  for British English (using prior OED etymology synonyms) which can be found at The Historical Thesaurus, which may help in solving later disagreements in language usage (so long as it isn't American vs. British).

Modifié par WhiZard, 19 septembre 2011 - 02:44 .

[avado]

NWN DM wrote...

Dead topic just won't die.

um, DM, this discussion has been going on for more years than I can count!  Well... from 2006 or 2005 AT LEAST!  It is my quiet source of emotional humdrum to read threads like this.  That people actually try to convince themselves that you can "cheat" when you are judge, jury, prosecutor, defendant, et al, is beyond me. 

[Pstemarie]

ShaDoOoW wrote...

Kail is right, this game is supposed to play with god mode so you dont cheat. Why would bioware implemented all these console commands, if they don't meant player to use them afterall?

Skipping the whole cheating argument - rather silly and in reality beneath the intellect of everyone here...

The console commands were implemented so that the designers could bypass certain limitations while playing through a test run of a module (e.g. debugging). Hence the reason they can only be activated in Debug Mode. IMO, it was never the intention of Bioware that they be used while actually "playing" the module.

Modifié par Pstemarie, 19 septembre 2011 - 05:04 .

[Lightfoot8]

avado wrote...

NWN DM wrote...

Dead topic just won't die.

um, DM, this discussion has been going on for more years than I can count!  Well... from 2006 or 2005 AT LEAST!  It is my quiet source of emotional humdrum to read threads like this.  That people actually try to convince themselves that you can "cheat" when you are judge, jury, prosecutor, defendant, et al, is beyond me. 

It is not that hard,  By WebShaman's own prof, in  both the threads that this war is being waged in, The OP's where cheating.  


AnyWay here is WebShamans proff.

Cheating is breaking the rules (given).

Closed SP Envoronment - In a Closed SP environment, the Player is Dev, Mod creator, DM, and Player all in one (defined, given).  A Closed SP Environment is one where there is no other participation of other persons of any kind in which to compare play results with.

In
a Closed SP environment (defined, given), the Player (defined, given)
themselves make the rules (logical conclusion following the definition
of what a Closed SP environment is).  They are themselves the ultimate authority.  There is no-one else involved that can contest this.

Since both OP's claimed to be cheating in there original posts and they are themselves the ultimate authority. They where cheating. There is no-one else involved that can contest this.

Per WebShamans own proff.

Modifié par Lightfoot8, 19 septembre 2011 - 05:15 .

[WebShaman]

No, per my own proof, they were not cheating, even though they were stating that they were (or thought that they were) IF they are playing in a Closed SP Environment (of which we do not know).

Now, what you could state is that perhaps the OPs were NOT playing in a Closed SP Environment (they do not state that they are). Then it could be that they are indeed cheating (as I have pointed out).

Again, one cannot cheat in a Closed SP Environment. It is simply not possible.

One CAN cheat in an open SP Environment, however. An open SP Environment is really a form of MP play, using agreed upon rules between two or more players. They just do not play simultaneously (or rather, together). Playing results are being compared.

[Kail Pendragon]

Lightfoot8 wrote...


Since both OP's claimed to be cheating in there original posts and they are themselves the ultimate authority. They where cheating. There is no-one else involved that can contest this.

Per WebShamans own proff.

Strawman, but I wouldn't expect anything else from someone that self admittedly stopped educating himself a long time ago.

The OP can claim whatever he wants to, same as people can claim the Earth is flat. Someone's misconception won't change the reality of facts. There can be no cheating in SP since it is logically impossible.

[Kail Pendragon]

Answering something Web brought up formerly, a "tactical fault" is not cheating. If the rules of a game contain a measure against a certain  behaviour ( a penalty kick for a fault committed eg) then applying that behaviour (committing the fault) because it grants (or it is thought to grant) a tactical advantage is just using the game rules at one's advantage, with no deception involved. It's like parking in a street where you are required to pay a parking ticket without paying it, because you know that the fine you get from not paying the ticket is lower than the amount you are required to pay. One is willing to pay the due fine as it is his right to do. Now, if the same guy was placing a counterfeit parking ticket behind the windscreen, that would be cheating (and I guess a crime too).

Cheating is a deceitful behaviour aimed at getting a personal advantage, whether it involves breaking of rules or not. In life there are no rules to follow (I'm not saying in society, mind me) and yet one can deceive someone else, just by misrepresenting the truth in order to get a personal advantage.

Differently from what the failed expert of word usage claims (and actually diametrically opposed to his false and unfounded claims), deception is always entailed in cheating while the breaking of rules is involved only in determinate circumstances (those environments where behaviour is regulated by rules, like in games).

Cheat: verb

    1 [no object] act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage:she always cheats at cards
    [with object] gain an advantage over or deprive of something by using unfair or deceitful methods; defraud:he had cheated her out of everything she had
    informal be sexually unfaithful:his wife was cheating on him
    2 [with object] avoid (something undesirable) by luck or skill:she cheated death in a spectacular crash

Dishonesty: noun (plural dishonesties)

[mass noun]: deceitfulness shown in someone’s character or behaviour:the dismissal of thirty civil servants for dishonesty and misconduct
[count noun]: a fraudulent or deceitful act:they are tackling the divisions and dishonesties on the campus

Deceit[mass noun]

    the action or practice of deceiving someone by concealing or misrepresenting the truth:a web of deceit
hypocrisy and deceit were anathema to her

[count noun] :a series of lies and deceits

[Kail Pendragon]

Pstemarie wrote...

Skipping the whole cheating argument - rather silly and in reality beneath the intellect of everyone here...

The console commands were implemented so that the designers could bypass certain limitations while playing through a test run of a module (e.g. debugging). Hence the reason they can only be activated in Debug Mode. IMO, it was never the intention of Bioware that they be used while actually "playing" the module.

You do well saying "IMO", since you are bringing no evidence supporting your position.

The only factual thing that can be said is that consolle commands were implemented and that they were made publically available to game users. In lack of any evidence supporting intended restraints to the freedom of usage of consolle commands, nothing can be said about them.