God Mode Cheat? (and another question)

[Legacy_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.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_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.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_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 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_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 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_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.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_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.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_WebShaman]

               That does make sense and follows.  

*nods*

Nice one!

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

               
            

[Legacy_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.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_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!
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_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.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_NWN DM]

               Dead topic just won't die.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_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 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_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.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_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.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_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.