07-03-2004, 05:09 AM
(This post was last modified: 07-03-2004, 05:26 AM by malach_cha_movis.)
Hi Lemmy, Pete, and other lurkers concerned with philosophical questions;
Forgive me for being long winded, but that seems to be my style. Though I lurk in computer game forums, that appeal to me, I donât often contribute posts. Most of my questions are readily answered just by reading and researching the forum posts, and I usually donât have the experience or the expertise to make useful contributions of my own.
Once in a great while however, a philosophical question arises in one of these game forums. These philosophical discussions hold great interest for me, because I enjoy participating in such discussions (debates? (ok, arguments!). When one of these questions occurs, I tend to believe that I have something worthwhile to add to the discussion.
Such is the case with this thread. It has been my experience that those websites that do not encourage the practice of cheating, and/or the free exchange of electronic media, have extremely strict and narrow definitions or these two practices.
Before I go any further, I should explain where my behavior stands in these matters, in case I did not make it clear in an earlier thread.
Regarding intellectual property, I do not solicit, nor do I accept licensed material, unless the license is transferred to me and all previous materials destroyed. I do not give away electronic media unless I own the license and I destroy my materials after I passed on the license.
Regarding cheating, I do not take unfair advantage of another player or players, or another person or persons in computer games, in gambling, or in real life.
I do not state the above to brag or try to impress others. It isnât even what I necessarily believe. However, at this time, I find it most convenient to subscribe to these standards, but only for my own behavior.
Both these epistemological questions are quite complex and have been discussed by philosophers for thousands of years. The question concerning the ownership of intellectual property was touched upon in some detail in an earlier thread. However finding a definition of cheating in terms of computer games has me confused. So, if the Moderator, LemmingofGlory does not object and thus delete this post â here are some questions in no particular order.
A simple example of cheating in multiplayer computer games is to use an editor or trainer to alter a characterâs stats and abilities, or to equip him with hacked items, when no one else in the game is aware of that this is occurring. I believe that all lurkers would consider this cheating, and completely unacceptable.
Now for a series of questions:
Multiplayer:
1. Is it cheating to use items such as trainers or editors to upgrade a character to a point where he/she can play with other members of a party; e.g., enter Hell/Hell?
2. If everyone in the game knew that an individual was using such practices and were willing to accept it, would it still be cheating?
3. If all players in the multiplayer environment knew that these practices might be taking place, is it cheating to use them secretly?
4 .Is the individual who has the time and the inclination to make a thousand runs through the first four levels in order to upgrade his Thinking Cap to a durability of twenty one, any less of a cheater than the player, who, with less time, hacks his TC to durability twenty one?
5. If one player professes to be friendly, is it cheating if he PKâs another player, or even worse, leads the second player into a trap where he is MKâd?
What about single player?
1. Is it possible to cheat at all in a single player game?
2. If the designers left hidden testing software in the game, is it cheating to use it?
3. Is it cheating to design your own or use anotherâs editor or trainer to aid you?
4. Is it cheating to use hint books or walkthroughs to finish a game?
5. Is it cheating to use an editor or trainer to research the underlying secrets of a game?
6. Is it cheating to disassemble the code for research purposes, when the publisher directly forbids it, when they issue the license?
At this point, I think you can see my confusion. If anyone answered no to all, some, or even one question, would he/she try to demonstrate a means that can be used to draw the line between cheating and not cheating.
Now for a slightly different but related question. If editors, trainers, and other aids can be permitted in some circumstances (Jarulf compiling his opus), then why the reluctance to provide ifb392 with directions to access the trainers he wanted. After all, what better place than Lurkerâs Lounge (other than a modding site) to find the people with the necessary knowledge.
Are new lurkers are considered âguilty until proven innocentâ or did I miss something obvious?
I am not criticizing the adoption of such a policy. In this country, the phrase âinnocent until proven guiltyâ has been repeated so often, most people regard it as some sort of universal truth. It is no such thing. It is only a statement of a particular relationship between the government and the people of the United States. Many other governments, organizations, (social, religious, charitable) and groups choose to practice the former policy, âguilty until proven innocent.â For example, in the present climate, a Catholic Priest accused of Pedophilia is considered âguilty until proven innocentâ
I am only seeking clarification.
I hope that the powers that be will decide to respond to this post. For any lurkers who wish to comment, support or vilify me, The floor is yours.
Malach_cha_Movis
Excellence is not a skill. It is a habit! - "Aristotle"
Forgive me for being long winded, but that seems to be my style. Though I lurk in computer game forums, that appeal to me, I donât often contribute posts. Most of my questions are readily answered just by reading and researching the forum posts, and I usually donât have the experience or the expertise to make useful contributions of my own.
Once in a great while however, a philosophical question arises in one of these game forums. These philosophical discussions hold great interest for me, because I enjoy participating in such discussions (debates? (ok, arguments!). When one of these questions occurs, I tend to believe that I have something worthwhile to add to the discussion.
Such is the case with this thread. It has been my experience that those websites that do not encourage the practice of cheating, and/or the free exchange of electronic media, have extremely strict and narrow definitions or these two practices.
Before I go any further, I should explain where my behavior stands in these matters, in case I did not make it clear in an earlier thread.
Regarding intellectual property, I do not solicit, nor do I accept licensed material, unless the license is transferred to me and all previous materials destroyed. I do not give away electronic media unless I own the license and I destroy my materials after I passed on the license.
Regarding cheating, I do not take unfair advantage of another player or players, or another person or persons in computer games, in gambling, or in real life.
I do not state the above to brag or try to impress others. It isnât even what I necessarily believe. However, at this time, I find it most convenient to subscribe to these standards, but only for my own behavior.
Both these epistemological questions are quite complex and have been discussed by philosophers for thousands of years. The question concerning the ownership of intellectual property was touched upon in some detail in an earlier thread. However finding a definition of cheating in terms of computer games has me confused. So, if the Moderator, LemmingofGlory does not object and thus delete this post â here are some questions in no particular order.
A simple example of cheating in multiplayer computer games is to use an editor or trainer to alter a characterâs stats and abilities, or to equip him with hacked items, when no one else in the game is aware of that this is occurring. I believe that all lurkers would consider this cheating, and completely unacceptable.
Now for a series of questions:
Multiplayer:
1. Is it cheating to use items such as trainers or editors to upgrade a character to a point where he/she can play with other members of a party; e.g., enter Hell/Hell?
2. If everyone in the game knew that an individual was using such practices and were willing to accept it, would it still be cheating?
3. If all players in the multiplayer environment knew that these practices might be taking place, is it cheating to use them secretly?
4 .Is the individual who has the time and the inclination to make a thousand runs through the first four levels in order to upgrade his Thinking Cap to a durability of twenty one, any less of a cheater than the player, who, with less time, hacks his TC to durability twenty one?
5. If one player professes to be friendly, is it cheating if he PKâs another player, or even worse, leads the second player into a trap where he is MKâd?
What about single player?
1. Is it possible to cheat at all in a single player game?
2. If the designers left hidden testing software in the game, is it cheating to use it?
3. Is it cheating to design your own or use anotherâs editor or trainer to aid you?
4. Is it cheating to use hint books or walkthroughs to finish a game?
5. Is it cheating to use an editor or trainer to research the underlying secrets of a game?
6. Is it cheating to disassemble the code for research purposes, when the publisher directly forbids it, when they issue the license?
At this point, I think you can see my confusion. If anyone answered no to all, some, or even one question, would he/she try to demonstrate a means that can be used to draw the line between cheating and not cheating.
Now for a slightly different but related question. If editors, trainers, and other aids can be permitted in some circumstances (Jarulf compiling his opus), then why the reluctance to provide ifb392 with directions to access the trainers he wanted. After all, what better place than Lurkerâs Lounge (other than a modding site) to find the people with the necessary knowledge.
Are new lurkers are considered âguilty until proven innocentâ or did I miss something obvious?
I am not criticizing the adoption of such a policy. In this country, the phrase âinnocent until proven guiltyâ has been repeated so often, most people regard it as some sort of universal truth. It is no such thing. It is only a statement of a particular relationship between the government and the people of the United States. Many other governments, organizations, (social, religious, charitable) and groups choose to practice the former policy, âguilty until proven innocent.â For example, in the present climate, a Catholic Priest accused of Pedophilia is considered âguilty until proven innocentâ
I am only seeking clarification.
I hope that the powers that be will decide to respond to this post. For any lurkers who wish to comment, support or vilify me, The floor is yours.
Malach_cha_Movis
Excellence is not a skill. It is a habit! - "Aristotle"