The "is it cheating or not" thread

[Legacy_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 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_NWN DM]

               Much ado about nothing.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Guest_Lowlander_*]

               

Shia Luck wrote...

 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.

Not if we had 30 year history of smurfing in video games, not if Blizzard banned people for single player smurfing, not if when you played Portal and used smurf codes, your end screen was emblazoned with SMURFED. Then for myself and a no doubt many others, smurfing would have the exact same connotations in the video game context.

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, and because it was a new player.  IMO even with narrow definition of smurf, there were other parties involved, that he was putting one over on.  Myself because we were comparing builds and he smurfed in his.  And potentially new player who may be led down the smurfing path to the detriment of his enjoying any challenge in the game.

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

               

                     Modifié par Lowlander, 05 mai 2011 - 01:39 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Shia Luck]

               

MrZork wrote...

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,...... 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.

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.

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.

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.)

MrZork wrote...

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.

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.

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.

MrZork wrote...

Shia Luck wrote..

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.]

Agreed

MrZork wrote...

Shia Luck wrote..

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.

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.

MrZork wrote...

Shia Luck wrote..

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.

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.

MrZork wrote...

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.

We are getting into a different area here:

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. '>

MrZork wrote...

Shia Luck wrote..

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_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.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_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.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_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.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_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.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_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.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_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*
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_WebShaman]

               

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

This is unfortunately not accurate.  One cannot violate self-imposed rules - because one is not being tricked here (unless one has a split personality disorder).  Since one does this on a freewill basis, it cannot be considered cheating.  One simply changes the rules being applied here.

If one does any type of comparison with others, however, then cheating is possible.

BTW - I am not a "youngster" - I am 45.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Elhanan]

               

WebShaman wrote...

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

This is unfortunately not accurate. One cannot violate self-imposed rules - because one is not being tricked here (unless one has a split personality disorder). Since one does this on a freewill basis, it cannot be considered cheating. One simply changes the rules being applied here.

If one does any type of comparison with others, however, then cheating is possible.

You equate cheating with trickery; I equate it with spoiling the game. If I wish to eliminate a challenge that is seen as tedium, but eliminate the challenge of something other than the intended loss, I seem to be cheating myself of that challenge. Tis semantics.

BTW - I am not a "youngster" - I am 45.

Are to me; enjoy!
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Guest_Lowlander_*]

               

WebShaman wrote...

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

Say what?? I was on the old forums for a good long time, I remember the occaisional smurfing discussion and there were always people who were for it and against it.

I don't remember any thread were it was definitively decided that smurfing was A OK.

Could you point that one out?? The old forum is still online in read only form.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_WebShaman]

               Elhanan, it is not a question of semantics, but one of logic.

And you said "the youngsters of today", which implies youth.  I do not consider one of 45 to be youthful, and certainly not to be one of the youngsters of today. YMMV.

@ Lowlander - you will not find a thread where it states that "smurfing is A OK", obviously.  You will find many threads that debate the "Cheating vs Not Cheating in SP" on the old fourms, however.  And the logic at that time is the same as it is now, and has not been proven to be false (it has been narrowed down as I pointed out, but other than that, is relatively unchanged).  

In other words, it was never REFUTED.  And it is still unrefuted.

And no, I am not going to go through all those threads and dig things out of them.  You are very capable of doing it yourself.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par WebShaman, 05 mai 2011 - 04:03 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_CBrachyrhynchos]

               

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.

Except we can dispute the logic because all you're doing here is an argument by definition, not to mention taking a ton for granted by using a purely consequentialist ethical framework of "no harm, no foul."

In terms of established precedence, I'm going to look more to things like chess puzzles, sudoku, crosswords, and logic puzzles. The point of these puzzles is to demonstrate mastery of a certain form of problem-solving. While you're certainly not harming anyone by looking at the solution or using computer-aided help, it's not particularly skillful, entertaining, or satisfying. 

Certainly all of this is taking place in a social context. You're playing a socially constructed game using rules and constraints set by WotC and Bioware, and you're talking about it here. While you certainly are free to change the rules to make certain aspects of the game easier, purists are more than welcome to point out that you've undermined some important checks and balances of the game as a result.