Grr. I hate making long posts, but I am sometimes unable to clarify subtle points briefly. Here goes...
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
]
Secondly, At least one of them is injured in some way by the cheat.
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.]
Thirdly, it also involves a breaking of a contract or trust or rules that people have signed up to in one way or another.
Okay, but deciding to play by certain rules doesn't exclude that the agreement to do so be with oneself.
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.
And I would say that, per above, the first condition isn't a condition for cheating as commonly used.
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?
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.
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.
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.
In an SP computer game none of those three conditions are fulfilled.
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.
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 
'>
