God Mode Cheat? (and another question)

[Legacy_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.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_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.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_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 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_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. 
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_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 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_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 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_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.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_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.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_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
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_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.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Kail Pendragon]

               

WhiZard wrote...

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).

Thank you Whizard for the enrichening historical perspective.