The "is it cheating or not" thread

[Legacy_HipMaestro]

               

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.

Yah, the infamous bane of schizophrenia can actually make gameplay more interesting.  But debugging one's (or both personalities') own script must really bite the big one.

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

You are, though.  You just don't realize it yet.  Apologies for spoiling the plot for you. Start stocking up on Depends while the price is still reasonable.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Guest_Lowlander_*]

               State this so called logic.

Because from my perspective all I have seen so far, is a reliance on a narrow interpretation of the word, that defines it to only have meaning when more than one person is involved.

EX: When I smurf by myself I am not Smurfing, because I define smurfing to involve multiple people.

That isn't unassailble logic, that is circular logic.

In the common usage (for decades now) smurfing in single player games is still smurfing.

Blizzard made the news for banning people single player smurfing.

Some games would remind you that you are smurfer after you used their smurf codes.

When we talk smurfing and video games, we are talking about using codes/exploits/bugs to take shortcuts, or make gains that were not intended by the designer.  There really should be no argument about which word to describe this activity. The activity exists, we need a word to describe it.

Taking umbrage with the word used and trying to narrow the definition is just silly. I am happy to use smurfing if the other word so offends.  But the other word is the one in wide usage.

Whatever the word, smurfing smells the same to me.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shia Luck]

               

Lowlander wrote...

State this so called logic.

Because from my perspective all I have seen so far, is a reliance on a narrow interpretation of the word, that defines it to only have meaning when more than one person is involved.

I think it is rather rude of you to completely ignore my first post in this thread in which I detail the logic of that argument. kail has also explained it.

Lowlander wrote...
EX: When I smurf by myself I am not Smurfing, because I define smurfing to involve multiple people.

That isn't unassailble logic, that is circular logic.

No, it isn't. You just did a fallacy of equivocation. Where a word with multiple meanings is used more than once in different meanings. If someone believed that to smurf, there had to be multiple people, they would never say "I smurf by myself" . That statement is made with your meaning.

Lowlander wrote...
In the common usage (for decades now) smurfing in single player games is still smurfing.

Whatever the word, smurfing smells the same to me.

Like this?

Lowlander wrote...The people who advocate cheating, well just
about everything they comment on is looked upon through the lens that
they may be cheating (whatever they call it), so their input is devalued
in my eyes.

This is what I object to (well, this and the fact that everytime I answer you you completely ignore my posts... Do you simply have no answer...?) .

I am completely honest about when I will and will not "cheat". many other people have posted how they cheat.  It is a given that when discussing builds we don't talk about cheating in any way. Everyone had already agreed unarmed was better. But, in a thread about a dual wield kama build, every single time someone mentioned kamas you reacted as if they said kamas were better than unarmed and got insulting. Now you are reduced to claiming we have not stated the logic when we have.

If we claimed things were one way and said we didnt cheat when in fact we did , you would have a right to feel annoyed. but we don't do that.

You are actually the one lying now, claiming we have not posted the logic of the argument when we have. MrZork managed to reply to my version of it and found problems with my wording. It will be interesting to see how he responds to the actual details of how he disagrees with the claims of the argument. You are pretending no one has posted anything and using fallacies to support your position.

Seriously... if I didn't know you from your other posts, I'd just call you a troll.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Elhanan]

               

WebShaman wrote...

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

Besides the definition being spot on for semantics, then logically if a Player cannot cheat themselves, there would be no need to reload the game to an earlier Save to lose something the cheat made possible. But it occurs.

The player realized they spoiled part of the game they wished to play and reload, or they realized they tricked themselves and wished to play again, or were they simply tricked again into reloading. I go with the first notion, and place my bet on semantics. 

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.

Funny that; I consider myself youthful; hence gaming and the forums, but know I am not young. But you can be old if you wish.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Gregor Wyrmbane]

               

Lowlander wrote...

When we talk smurfing and video games, we are talking about using codes/exploits/bugs to take shortcuts, or make gains that were not intended by the designer.  There really should be no argument about which word to describe this activity. The activity exists, we need a word to describe it.

How do you know what the designers intended? Did you ask them? Did they tell you they never intended for anyone to use the "cheat codes" that they themselves designed into their game? Did they make a public statement that they considered using the "cheat codes" as "cheating" at sometime in the past? Or did you just decide that for yourself? If they didn't intend for people to use their "cheat codes", then why didn't they ever take the same steps the folks at Blizzard and the other games you mention are taking to decry the "cheaters"? Could it be perhaps because the people who designed NWN don't consider it "cheating"? Maybe, just maybe, they DID intend for people to use their "cheat codes". Therefore, the "activity" isn't "cheating", but rather playing the game within the constraints the designers intended.

Lowlander wrote...

Whatever the word, smurfing smells the same to me.

And no matter how you try to explain it away, arrogance and self-righteousness smell the same to me.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Guest_Lowlander_*]

               Edit: You asked for a quote to reference what I am paraphrasing, it
isn't worth bumping the thread for it, but here is a section from your
first post as reference:

Shia Luck wrote...
Firstly, every other definition and languageuse of the word "cheating" involves multiple people.
Secondly, At least one of them is injured in some way by the cheat.
Thirdly, it also involves a breaking of a contract or trust or rules
that people have signed up to in one way or another.

My original paraphrase:

Lowlander wrote...
Because from my perspective all I have
seen so far, is a reliance on a narrow interpretation of the word, that
defines it to only have meaning when more than one person is involved.

Original post continues below:

Shia Luck wrote...

I think it is rather rude of you to completely ignore my first post in this thread in which I detail the logic of that argument. kail has also explained it.

How did I ignore it? I paraphrased exactly what is in your first post of this thread. You are relying on the definition of the word "cheat" from the dictionary and stating that according to other uses of cheat, there must be a wronged party.


That isn't a logical argument, it is simply an attempt to use a limited definition and ignore that for decades in the context of computer gaming, the word "cheat" has no such limitation.

I don't care if the word is cheat or smurf or whatever.  But "cheat" happens to be the one in common usage for this activity.  You aren't going to succeed in changing the vocabulary around this and even if you did, it would change nothing.  It is promoting the activity that I dislike, changing the term used for it, would change nothing.

If you are upset that I hold some level of disdain for the activity being promoted, and speak my mind on it,  you are free to ignore me.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Lowlander, 06 mai 2011 - 04:11 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_KooKoo88]

               *singsong voice* When I think of smurfs I touch mysmurf . . .

Hmmm . . .what?  . . . ummm, sorry, I got distracted by the smurf thing.  I think Lowlander is a bit obsessed. '>  jk, jk.

To cheat or not to cheat?  that is not the question.  Here's the thing.  If you are going to cheat or smurf or console command, have fun doing it.

Real life is really hard.  Cheating has different meanings than it does in game.  NWN is a game.  If you have fun playing a game, you are doing it correctly.  If you are not having fun, THEN you are cheating yourself. '>

Now, a couple of things.  NWN is based on D&D.  In a proper D&D game, if you die without enough gold to afford a resurrection, you have to draw up a new character, so by reloading or respawning, you're cheating.  Part of the problem with this disagreement is that "cheating" has different definitions for different people.  People tend to be stubborn and not change their way of thinking to the proper way . . . mine.  Some people think cheating means god mode, some thinks it means spawning an item, some think it means reloading and some think it means smurfs. 

I personally try to play the first time through any game, OC, module or anything else without smu. . . cheating or looking at FAQs.  I do reload though.  If I get stuck, instead of being miserable, I find out how to overcome it.  If I decide a game is worth playing over, I cheat like a madman.  It's amazing how much quicker the silly fights get finished with STR 90 an god mode.  Then I can get to the story.  (I don't like hack and slash)  Can't we all just smu . . . get along?

Another thing to consider is that when in battle, I don't run back and forth drawing attacks of opportunity on purpose.  Yet the game's pathing messes up where I'm trying to go and I end up dying because the stupid script smu . . . cheats like a . . . something that cheats a lot.  So I have to reload and go all godmode on them!

Plus, how do you know I'm not secretly god, so it's cheating NOT to use that mode.  . . . I'm not god in case you're wondering, although the emo bunnies do worship me.

Maybe the question shouldn't be about cheating, but about how messed up rules are.  After all, rules are arbitrary decisions based on the opinions of a group of people.  Therefore I choose to make up my own rules and apply them to the game I'm playing.  As a result, I am NOT cheating.  I now have a 90 charisma, therefore you will all agree with me in spectacular fashion.

Legal disclaimer: My rules are subject to change without notice.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shia Luck]

               

Lowlander wrote...

How did I ignore it? I paraphrased exactly what is in your first post of this thread. You are relying on the definition of the word "cheat" from the dictionary and stating that according to other uses of cheat, there must be a wronged party.

That isn't a logical argument, it is simply an attempt to use a limited definition and ignore that for decades in the context of computer gaming, the word "cheat" has no such limitation.

Then you should have no problem quoting me. There;s a quote button top right of my posts. Show everyone how I do what you claim I do. Quote my definiton and your paraphrasing.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_VPJ]

               

KooKoo88 wrote...
I now have a 90 charisma, therefore you will all agree with me in spectacular fashion.

<zombiemode>Must...not...cheat...in...Resurrection...Gone..Wronger...  Must...not meet...the...silver...dragon...or see...alternative...zombieBob...endings...must...not...re-start</zombiemode>

Ouch...hurts sticking my arms out like that for too long.  I cheated my ass off in that mod.  *grin*  Hope you, as the author of that mod, don't hate me for it.  Especially for what I did to Zombie Bob.  '>
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_KooKoo88]

               

VPJ wrote...

KooKoo88 wrote...
I now have a 90 charisma, therefore you will all agree with me in spectacular fashion.

<zombiemode>Must...not...cheat...in...Resurrection...Gone..Wronger...  Must...not meet...the...silver...dragon...or see...alternative...zombieBob...endings...must...not...re-start</zombiemode>

Ouch...hurts sticking my arms out like that for too long.  I cheated my ass off in that mod.  *grin*  Hope you, as the author of that mod, don't hate me for it.  Especially for what I did to Zombie Bob.  '>

Are you kidding?  I cheated in that mod!  And I'm the one who made it. '>  What you do to zombies on your own time is your business, just as it's Lowlander's business what he does with smurfs. '>
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_VPJ]

               

KooKoo88 wrote...
Are you kidding?  I cheated in that mod!  And I'm the one who made it. '>  What you do to zombies on your own time is your business, just as it's Lowlander's business what he does with smurfs. '>

I'm righteously indignant on behalf of all smurfs.  It doesn't matter what the smurfs think...my opinion trumps them all.  There outta be a law! 
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shia Luck]

               *laughing at KooKoo and VPj*

Actually, my flatmate's partner said his "dad used to get smurfs with every 20 gallon of petrol" At school they swapped them.

Of course it might not be 20 gallon... he might have smurfed to get smurfs *laughing*  

The smurfer! I shall advise my flatmate not to marry him immediatley. Who wants to be wife to a smurfer? The horror!!!!

Have fun '>
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_amers1015]

               

VPJ wrote...

KooKoo88 wrote...
Are you kidding?  I cheated in that mod!  And I'm the one who made it. '>  What you do to zombies on your own time is your business, just as it's Lowlander's business what he does with smurfs. '>

I'm righteously indignant on behalf of all smurfs.  It doesn't matter what the smurfs think...my opinion trumps them all.  There outta be a law! 

*Happy dance*  Yay!  V worked 'righteously indignant' into his post!  It's a great day!  

And I SOOOO cheated in your mod KooKoo dear.  The emo bunnies made me do it.  You're still awesome though, just ask you. 
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_NWN DM]

               Even more ado about nothing.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_amers1015]

               Interesting that one would not only read a thread that he knows is 'much ado about nothing' but also post in said thread.

Methinks NWN DM is a fan of nothing. I wonder if he follows nothing's blog. Interesting stuff in there.

Edited to correct uncharacteristic imperfection in post.  *Note extreme sarcasm*  '>
               
               

               

                     Modifié par amers1015, 06 mai 2011 - 04:27 .