07-07-2004, 10:32 AM
Legit, as off legitimate means nothing more than that the action is accepted by the community and complies to established priciples and standarts. As you can see, this 'definition' is subject to certain group dynamics, just like the 'definition' of cheating is.
It is supposed to be a universal concept. Guilds can establish their own rules on what they can and cannot do, but this is something completely different. The whole point of "legit" is that everyone on b.net should understand what is and isn't cheating (in the basic gaming sense of the term), and that you can group up with a bunch of people who don't cheat. Now, as things turn out, there is actually a lot of disagreement on various points about whether certain things are legit, or cheating. And so, since there is no "Supreme Legit Court" to make the judgments, people have to agree to disagree, and understand that the usefulness of the term is limited to the common ground that almost everyone does agree on.
Let's see: according to Nystul and me, bug-exploiting is not cheating, since the action you take is written in the code. It may well be cheesy, but that's an utterly different boot.
According to you, everything that's not legit is cheating. Since the majority would probably (only weak part in my logics) consider bug-exploiting not legit, this would be cheating by your definition. By ours, it isn't.
You'll have to speak for yourself only on this one. I say that bug exploitation is cheating, and therefor not legit. Sure, the basic rules of the game are defined by the game code. But if you say something is a bug, you are saying that it is an errror in the game code which does not reflect the game's intended design and specifications. To then say you are exploiting this bug means you are dishonestly taking advantage of a mistake that let's you bypass the game's intended rules.
Of course the problem here is that there are differing opinions on what qualify as bugs, and beyond that there are differing opinions on what qualifies as exploitation. Not only are these blurry lines within the b.net community at large, but they are not items that you will find a consensus on here at the Lurker Lounge either.
I suggest that a lurkerlounge definition of legitness and of cheating be made. This definition shall have validity only within these forums, but within these forums decisions on banning / moderating users shall be based upon it.
Lemming has stated his basic definition of legitness/cheating in this thread. It is something he is consistent on, and in general terms it is consistent with the crude universal ideas of those terms. To try to get consensus on more specific details, however, is like hammering your head against a brick wall. As Thecla's wit suggested at the start of this thread, we had this debate about 7 years ago, kept it going strong for about 4 years, and accomplished very little.
It is supposed to be a universal concept. Guilds can establish their own rules on what they can and cannot do, but this is something completely different. The whole point of "legit" is that everyone on b.net should understand what is and isn't cheating (in the basic gaming sense of the term), and that you can group up with a bunch of people who don't cheat. Now, as things turn out, there is actually a lot of disagreement on various points about whether certain things are legit, or cheating. And so, since there is no "Supreme Legit Court" to make the judgments, people have to agree to disagree, and understand that the usefulness of the term is limited to the common ground that almost everyone does agree on.
Let's see: according to Nystul and me, bug-exploiting is not cheating, since the action you take is written in the code. It may well be cheesy, but that's an utterly different boot.
According to you, everything that's not legit is cheating. Since the majority would probably (only weak part in my logics) consider bug-exploiting not legit, this would be cheating by your definition. By ours, it isn't.
You'll have to speak for yourself only on this one. I say that bug exploitation is cheating, and therefor not legit. Sure, the basic rules of the game are defined by the game code. But if you say something is a bug, you are saying that it is an errror in the game code which does not reflect the game's intended design and specifications. To then say you are exploiting this bug means you are dishonestly taking advantage of a mistake that let's you bypass the game's intended rules.
Of course the problem here is that there are differing opinions on what qualify as bugs, and beyond that there are differing opinions on what qualifies as exploitation. Not only are these blurry lines within the b.net community at large, but they are not items that you will find a consensus on here at the Lurker Lounge either.
I suggest that a lurkerlounge definition of legitness and of cheating be made. This definition shall have validity only within these forums, but within these forums decisions on banning / moderating users shall be based upon it.
Lemming has stated his basic definition of legitness/cheating in this thread. It is something he is consistent on, and in general terms it is consistent with the crude universal ideas of those terms. To try to get consensus on more specific details, however, is like hammering your head against a brick wall. As Thecla's wit suggested at the start of this thread, we had this debate about 7 years ago, kept it going strong for about 4 years, and accomplished very little.