Lookitthat: a new Godwin's law evolving before our eyes.

[Legacy_Kail Pendragon]

               

Frith5 wrote...

WebShaman, you are only citing yourself as proof of your 'facts' which are really your opinion. This is an unprovable discussion, and _six is right in that the true message ought to be something more positive to newcomers (and oldtimers!) to this forum. Look, I don't CARE what anyone does with this or any other game. I absolutely support anyone who wants to play it however they want, with all the 'modifications' to the standard rules that were set forth both in D&D and in Bioware's gameplay. Who cares? But, it is silly (in my opinion) for you to authoritatively state your opinion "Can't cheat in a closed SP environment", and then continue to say, "Well, there, now we have an absolute fact from which to base everything." Come on, man. That's not logical. I could say the same sort of thing, and then keep saying we've already proven this or that. No, you have not proven a thing, sir. At any rate, have fun everyone, however you want to play this game. I consider it cheating to break established rules, and changing the rules is impossible without breaking the original rules. But, just because I consider it cheating, that does not mean I go about berating and insulting those who don't think it's cheating.  I would expect the same treatment from others (although I've run aground of a few folks who do not extend this courteous behavior, more do than don't).

Then I guess that for you 4+4=10, which is true in base 8. You are using a different definition of cheating, where cheating is simply breaking rules and are also assuming that a single player set up "written in stone" rules in the first place so that he has actually to break them in order to modify them to another set o frules. This is all soooo artificial.

The point remains, one cannot cheat in SP, because of what cheating means. Your unintelligence and denial of reality is irrelevant. If truth insults you, I don' t care.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_WebShaman]

               Frith5, I am not "citing" myself here!  There is a thread (on this forum, and also, of course, on the Legacy forum) where I offer this proof.  I am citing that thread.

I do not remember if you were active in any of those.

So what, exactly, are you asking for here?  You want a link to that thread?  I can give you one.  

I unfortunately cannot give you a link to the Legacy forum thread (where the Devs actually answered, stating that there was no cheating in a SP game of NWN).

This is not a matter of opinion.  This is where you and others who are in denial are faulting.  You (and some others) dance around the issue, admitting more or less to some elements of the proof, but unable (or unwilling) to take the final steps toward acceptance of the whole.  The proof is a concrete, logical, factual proof.  Every part of it is defined - and proven.  No-one has been able to offer up a counterproof in over 5 years!  Not one single part of it has been disproved!

It is really odd, and strange, to witness this behavior of denial, especially in light of an existing proof.  It is like you all adamantly stating that the Theory of Relativity is wrong, without offering any shred of evidence to the contrary!  There exists a proof for it.  It still stands, despite so many attempts to disprove elements of it.

We see here a major disparity between statement of opinion, belief, and thought vs factual proof.

The curious thing is, you all (the deniers here) somehow give the impression that you all think you are somehow correct in your opinion and that those who have accepted the factual proof are wrong!

It boggles the mind.

We who have accepted the facts here are simply stating that 1+1=2.  It has a proof, and has been proven.  We have realized that to hold an opinion, belief, or thinking otherwise is logically faulty.  It is a realization that 1+1=2 is true.  It is a fact.  Therefore, my opinion, belief, or thinking must be re-aligned to include that.

You deniers are stating the opinion that we are wrong!  Without counterproof or evidence to the contrary and having full access to the proof itself!  You do not even state what you believe 1+1 equals!  Just that it cannot be 2!  Some agree that 1 can be added to 1, some agree that 1+1 must equal something...and one believes that 1+1=2 is true, but it is impossible to have this condition!!!!!

But all the deniers agree that it cannot be correct.

Amazing.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_WebShaman]

               Proof of not being able to cheat in a Closed SP Environment

Frith5, I do not see you posting there, so perhaps you missed it.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_WebShaman]

               For those who cannot (for whatever reason) click on the link and read, I repost it here :

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.

As such, a Player cannot break their own rules, as they create and decide them as they see fit. 

So :
We have defined what Cheating is.
We have defined what a Closed SP Environment is.
We have defined what a Player is within a Closed SP Environment.
We have shown that when the above is true, that there is no cheating possible (with the exception of multiple personalities) because no rules are being broken.  A Player as the ultimate authority cannot break their own self-imposed rules - instead, they change the pre-existing rules to whatever the current ones are.  This is due to the fact that they themselves are the ultimate authority.  There is no-one else present to contest this.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

WebShaman wrote...

Cheating is breaking the rules (given).

This is some definition from meaning dictionary or where you get that? Also what are "the rules"?

Because I have different definition where depends on intend. The game (in NWN context its OCs modules) creator  havent intended a player to use god mode to be able to finish it.

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.

But what is the Closed SP environment? I dont even believe on closed SP. Also you cannot be module creator of something you havent created, thats unlogical. If a closed SP environment is "when player can take all those roles" then this might happen only in module he create himself, not in a module he downloaded from other author or in module he got with game.

As such, since you are not module creator you can break creator's intend of how the game should be played.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par ShaDoOoW, 15 septembre 2011 - 03:19 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Kail Pendragon]

               

ShaDoOoW wrote...

WebShaman wrote...

Cheating is breaking the rules (given).

This is some definition from meaning dictionary or where you get that? Also what are "the rules"?

Because I have different definition where depends on intend. The game (in NWN context its OCs modules) creator  havent intended a player to use god mode to be able to finish it.

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.

But what is the Closed SP environment? I dont even believe on closed SP. Also you cannot be module creator of something you havent created, thats unlogical. If a closed SP environment is "when player can take all those roles" then this might happen only in module he create himself, not in a module he downloaded from other author or in module he got with game.

As such, since you are not module creator you can break creator's intend of how the game should be played.

Which is utterly irrelevant. The original module creator intentions have no bearing whatsoever on the single player who by downloading the module made it his own and as such can decide in all liberty what to do with it. Or is there a binding agreement one must sign before downloading a module from the vault and that limits the player liberty of playing said module? No, right? So there goes your delusional argument about the module creator's intentions.

There can be no cheating in SP. The "rules" , intentions or whatever of whoever created the module are not the "rules" of SP. They are just their rules/intentions and as such do not apply to the single player. And your beliefs about "closed SP" (like Web calls it) existence are meaningless and irrelevant as is your belief that a modification is actually a fix; it doesn't change the reality of factual existence of closed SP experience.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Kail Pendragon]

               

ShaDoOoW wrote...

WebShaman wrote...

Cheating is breaking the rules (given).

This is some definition from meaning dictionary or where you get that? Also what are "the rules"?

Because I have different definition where depends on intend. The game (in NWN context its OCs modules) creator  havent intended a player to use god mode to be able to finish it.

And you know that because... oh, I almost forgot, you can read into other people's mind! It reminds me of MM trying to convinve everybody that he knew DnD game designer's intent.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

Kail Pendragon wrote...

And you know that because... oh, I almost forgot, you can read into other people's mind! It reminds me of MM trying to convinve everybody that he knew DnD game designer's intent.

Its very easy to guess a someone intent. Im rather surprised that you can't. Often when talking with friends I for example ask for something and they based on their knowledge of what im am, what im doing, can immediately guess why I want to know that and what Im probably attempting to do.

Just because you are not familiar with something or someone it doesnt mean someone else cant know intent of that (person). Its easily possible to guess and DnD game designers intend of particular subject based on informations how designers proceeded with similar things through additional books with extra features or dnd version update (for example 3.0 -> 3.5). Same as is possible to guess that designers of all three official campaigns didnt intented player to use console commands neither any character modification in order to finish it. Or you think they did?

BTW let me ask, you really think a modification cannot be fix? Because that would be that proof of "unintelligence" that you accusing all others.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par ShaDoOoW, 16 septembre 2011 - 12:04 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_WebShaman]

               Intent?

I asked in that thread that I posted about what others considered cheating was, and the CONSENSUS was that Cheating = Breaking the Rules.  You were active in that thread, you could have posted back then to the contrary.

And your definition is just one.  Against the many who were in agreement that Cheating was Breaking the Rules.

To be factual : regardless or not of intent, Breaking the Rules is Breaking the Rules.  Adding intent into it does not change the fact, does it?

Now, can we move on here?  Do you see how intent is irrelevant here to the definition of what Cheating is?  It simply does not make a difference to the definition if I add intent to it!  If I intentionally break the rules, or I unintentionally break them, the end result is still the same - the rules have been broken.

Got that?

As for the Closed SP Environment, you seem to be failing to grasp something here - others have validated that it exists!  That *YOU* cannot seem to grasp the concept is also irrelevant - others can and have.

You seem to be colorblind - so how can we explain to you what Blue looks like?  Does that mean that Blue does not exist, merely because you cannot grasp the concept?  

Do you begin to see what you are doing here?  You are trying to argue from your own perception, without just looking at the facts and logic and following them.  I have defined everything, and given you the logical flowthrough and to what logical conclusion it leads to.

I tell you what - post your counterproof.  All the points must be defined.  It should be logical for others to follow, and should lead to a logical conclusion.  It should prove that Cheating is Possible in a Closed SP Environment.  Or, if you still wish to stick to your position, prove that there cannot be a Closed SP Environment.  I know that you cannot, because I (and others) have experienced it, but give it a try.

In other words,

You must prove that one of my points is invalid.  

Oh, and you are making a logical fallacy about modification vs fix - a fix is a modification, but a modification is not necessarily a fix.

Got it?
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Kail Pendragon]

               

ShaDoOoW wrote...

Kail Pendragon wrote...

And you know that because... oh, I almost forgot, you can read into other people's mind! It reminds me of MM trying to convinve everybody that he knew DnD game designer's intent.

Its very easy to guess a someone intent. Im rather surprised that you can't. Often when talking with friends I for example ask for something and they based on their knowledge of what im am, what im doing, can immediately guess why I want to know that and what Im probably attempting to do.

Just because you are not familiar with something or someone it doesnt mean someone else cant know intent of that (person). Its easily possible to guess and DnD game designers intend of particular subject based on informations how designers proceeded with similar things through additional books with extra features or dnd version update (for example 3.0 -> 3.5). Same as is possible to guess that designers of all three official campaigns didnt intented player to use console commands neither any character modification in order to finish it. Or you think they did?

I'm not such a fool as to state with certainty the intentions of others. At most I can make educated guesses, but I absolutely refrain from stating as a fact something I cannot prove. Differently from you. You state opinion and guesses as fact and that simply constitutes irrelevant remarks.

BTW let me ask, you really think a modification cannot be fix? Because that would be that proof of "unintelligence" that you accusing all others.

I know that your ILR modifications are not fixes differently from your unfounded claims on the NWN wiki pages. You have yet to understand it, seemingly, which says a lot about your intelligence of the matter.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Kail Pendragon, 16 septembre 2011 - 01:06 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               You are wrong. You still talking about whats cheating, but you never meationed what "the rules" are. My note about intend didn't redefined what cheating is, but actually defined what "the rules" are.

Im not sure if others validated your "closed SP thing" actually noone else mentioned it in this discussion, Kail and others from your camp dont need the SP to be closed to believe you cant cheat and others from my camp never even bothered to react on your closed SP definition. So tell me please names of peoples who validated your concept.

I already pointed flaws in your concept of closed singleplayer, dont remember you would react on them (Kail did but his reaction was just classical agressive accusation with no point).

Fix issue: I havent said that modification is a fix! I have said that some modification can be fixes.

Kail Pendragon wrote...

I'm not such a fool as to state with certainty the intentions of others.
At most I can make educated guesses, but I absolutely refrain from
stating as a fact something I cannot prove. Differently from you. You
state opinion and guesses as fact and that simply constitutes irrelevant
remarks.

Wrong. Never brought an intent to be a fact.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par ShaDoOoW, 16 septembre 2011 - 01:16 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_WebShaman]

               ??

I don't have to mention or even state what the "rules" are!

WTF??!!

The only time I act as a Higher Authority in order to establish any rules, is when I play in a Closed SP Environment.  Then I can choose to use whatever the 9 hells rules that I wish!

On a PW Staff, I might suggest Rules (or I might even be the sole authority, and state them, but that does not mean that anyone needs to agree to them - empty PW, etc).

You state that I am wrong but don't have any idea what you are talking about!  Where I state Cheating is Breaking the Rules, insert whatever damned rules you want and THEN BREAK THEM!!!

Then you are cheating!

Got that?

Why are you being so dense here?  How old are you?  I mean...it is basic logic here.  Really.  

Cheating is Breaking Rules.  Does it matter what rules here?  Can you even grasp this?  If not, how in the 9 hells do you even function in society?

IT IS A GENERAL STATEMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you disagree with this, then what do you consider cheating to be, pray tell?

Also, you say "wrong.  Never brough an intent to be a fact" - but stated "The game (in NWN context its OCs modules) creator  havent intended a player to use god mode to be able to finish it."

You state this as a fact, you do realize this, right?

You are making a STATEMENT.  You state it as if it is absolutely true (you do not allow for any other outcome or consideration in your statement).

So how do you know what the GAME CREATOR (in NWN OCs creator, which actually is a number of individuals, whole teams were involved, so it would be CREATORS here) intended?

Do you know them all personally?  Did you ask EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM THIS?  "Was it your intent that someone be able to use Godmode in the OCs?"

Did you ever consider that perhaps one (or more) might have had the thought that perhaps someone might want to make changes to the OCs for their own personal enjoyment and thus suggested that allowing for Godmode via the Console would be good for this purpose?

For example, for debugging their changes to the OCs?

So yes, you did bring an intent to be a fact.  It doesn't MATTER if you intended for it to be brought out like that or not - you did it.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_WebShaman]

               And in a Closed SP Environment, intent is decided on by the Player themselves.  There is only ONE (1) Uno, Eins, person involved!!!!!

Are you seriously trying to state that I cannot play the OCs anyway that I choose here?  Are you seriously trying to hold the position that I cannot play the OCs as I see fit?

Get this - you are NOT in any way, shape, or fashion a Higher Authority to me. Neither is Bioware here. I do not have to reach ANY TYPE OF CONSENSUS WITH YOU or anyone else to play the OCs as I see fit in my Closed SP Environment!

And I will let you know something else - the same thing goes for your inofficial patch.  You have no authority over me in how I implement it in my Closed SP Environment.  I also do not have to reach any consensus with you in how I use it, change it, etc in my Closed SP Environment.

Got that?
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Kail Pendragon]

               

ShaDoOoW wrote...

Kail Pendragon wrote...

I'm not such a fool as to state with certainty the intentions of others.
At most I can make educated guesses, but I absolutely refrain from
stating as a fact something I cannot prove. Differently from you. You
state opinion and guesses as fact and that simply constitutes irrelevant
remarks.

Wrong. Never brought an intent to be a fact.

You stated your conjecture about someone else's intent/motivations as a fact.

ShaDoOoW wrote...
The game (in NWN context its OCs modules) creator  havent intended a player to use god mode to be able to finish it.

ShaDoOoW wrote...
Dont think so, rather they dont want to get their hands dirty with Kail or you.

Now, be kind of yourself and stop making even more of a fool out of yourself.  Just a friendly piece of advice.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Kail Pendragon]

               And let's not forget that console commands have been made publicly available without any difficulty in finding themby BW themselves, not to mention the game (and I mean all the OCs and the premium modules) can be played at different difficulty levels, at the player's preference.