07-06-2004, 04:38 PM
Hi,
To quote Nystul:
I agree with him on that part completely.
Now:
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.
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.
See why it ain't so easy to set the border between legitness and cheating? This border has a certain thickness. Another example: trading. While some say that trading cannot be trusted, it's a perfectly acceptable game feature for others.
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.
Greetings, Fragbait
To quote Nystul:
Quote:In computer games, the fundamental "rules" are layed out by the way the game is coded. And so, this is the central point in determining what qualifies as cheating.
I agree with him on that part completely.
Now:
Quote:anything that is not legit is cheating by definition.is wrong IMO.
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.
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.
See why it ain't so easy to set the border between legitness and cheating? This border has a certain thickness. Another example: trading. While some say that trading cannot be trusted, it's a perfectly acceptable game feature for others.
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.
Greetings, Fragbait
Quote:You cannot pass... I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the Flame of Anor. The Dark Flame will not avail you, Flame of Udun. Go back to the shadow. You shall not pass.- Gandalf, speaking to the Balrog
Quote:Empty your mind. Be formless, shapeless, like water. Now you put water into a cup, it becomes the cup. You put water into a bottle, it becomes the bottle. You put it in a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Now water can flow, or it can crash! Be water, my friend...- Bruce Lee
Quote: There's an old Internet adage which simply states that the first person to resort to personal attacks in an online argument is the loser. Don't be one.- excerpt from the forum rules
Post content property of Fragbait (member of the lurkerlounge). Do not (hesitate to) quote without permission.