To cheat or not to cheat?

[--Pete]

Hi,

Although its based mostly on The Sims and FPS, I think most lurkers will recognize the issue. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/27/technolo.../27chea.html?th

--Pete

[NiteFox]

Welcome to The New York Times on the Web!
For full access to our site, please complete this simple registration form.
As a member, you'll enjoy:

• In-depth coverage and analysis of news events from The New York Times FREE
• Up-to-the-minute breaking news and developing stories FREE
• Exclusive Web-only features, classifieds, tools, multimedia and much, much more FREE

[--Pete]

Hi,

You don't want to sign up? That's your choice.

But, in my experience, the NY Times is one of the nicer groups to sign up with. For one thing, they don't seem to sell your info to mailing list generators. You don't get anything from them that you don't ask for. You can tailor your "daily paper" so that it is pretty nearly what you want (and you can unsubscribe if you don't want it).

But if you choose not to sign up, then don't complain if you can't get to the posted links. ;)

--Pete

[NiteFox]

Strangely enough, I did register. It might come in useful later.

Just call my last post a warning for those about to click with no intention of registering.

[Occhidiangela]

I was afraid that it might lead to discussions about maphack . . . :).

Blech.

I met enough cheaters on the golf course, before I ever played on line games, that I know what is at stake. :)

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

Mr. Blackman said his team would pay extra attention to the economy in Star Wars Galaxies because designers have built in unparalleled freedom for players to create objects and sell them. In theory, this should give players many options and strategies to explore, but it could also lead to players' gaining monopolies. "I'm sure that six months after launch we're going to have plenty of stories," he said.

This will be akin to the Aurora toolset for Neverwinter Nights, methinks. Like NWN, SWG is enclosing their doom within the parameters of their own product.

[LiquidDamage]

This will be akin to the Aurora toolset for Neverwinter Nights, methinks.  Like NWN, SWG is enclosing their doom within the parameters of their own product.

No, it's just an in-game crafting system. Most MMORPGs have a crafting system. Players don't design equipment free-form like in the NWN toolset, their characters perform certain actions in game that result in an item being created.

It is something like the crafting cube recipes in D2X, but your characters actually have to develop skills in order to do it.

[Conner Macleod]

Ok, that was a blatant attempt to give money to the New York Times. NO MORE linking to pay sites - if there is something you want us to see from one, please post what you've read. My opinion.

[Griselda]

I've been registered at the New York Times website for a while now, and I've never had to give them a dime. They do put a popup on their front page, but that's about it.

-Griselda

[Elric of Grans]

Hail Conner,

Er... not only does it say free on many parts of the page, but in the first reply to this thread it mentions that signing up is free.

[Dani]

I've been registered at the New York Times website for a while now, and I've never had to give them a dime.  They do put a popup on their front page, but that's about it.

-Griselda

Switch to Opera or Mozilla and you'll never see another pop-up. :)

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

Oh, wait... they DIDN'T ASK FOR ANY.

Hey Conner, if you have something you want to say, try reading the actual content first.

Better yet: Shut up and learn.

MY opinion.

[--Pete]

Can we get rid of this jackass?

[ShadowHM]

Based on this observation by Conner:

I'd remember that Dii.net is run mostly by women, and no offense to Griselda, you gals tend to like gossip, conflict, and the "who's cheating on who" stories. Not bashing, I'm just saying.

I am offended.

In fact, I am ready to take up Elric's notion and shove my Battleaxe someplace it shouldn't normally fit. On the other hand, with this boy, it probably would fit with room to spare for anyone else's favourite weapon to be shoved in too.

Charity bedamned. He has dug in too deep for me to care whether there is hope for him. He should "just go say" somewhere else now.

[Kevin]

Yep, the same issues that have plagued humanity since any type of rules were invented. People cheat, lie, steal, and break the rules. People will do anything to survive.

I've seen a few studies that attempt to correlate such maladaptive behavior to the human survival instinct. The basic idea being that since we have evolved beyond the do anything to get food, stay alive and reproduce stage, that our desires for basic subsitance get rerouted to other areas where the sheer ruthlessness that was sometimes needed to just stay alive are let out.

The bottom line is that as long as there are any arenas in which people compete with each other on any level, be it games, jobs, sports, etc, there will be cheating. Lots of peopel want to be the best and they don't care how they get their. If they are on the top of the pile at the end of the day, it makes them feel good. Its the same old same old, and most discussions like this pretty much flow the same way, usually branching into philosophy, ethics, history, and psychology with plenty of anecdotal evidence and usually some good hard science as well. Not that it isn't interesting to debate, I'm just in a mood of "why discuss philosophy if you can't create any practical applications from it, but I still have to throw my voice into the arena anyway." I have rarely seen a cheating discussion that came up with any practical good unfortunately.

[Occhidiangela]

Stupid is as stupid does. :P

Blizzard has a whole host of forums where you would be most welcome. Why not spew your ignorance there?

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . that's not what I found interesting.

I agree that cheating discussions are fun but ultimately pointless. However, I didn't post the link to get a cheating discussion going. More in the spirit of "Hey, we've arrived!" ;) When the NY Times considers a topic worthy of its "All the news that fits, we print" (I might have that slightly wrong ;) ) guideline, you know that topic has become mainstream :)

Oh, and BTW, studies in game theory indicate that, under certain conditions, "cheating" (i.e., not cooperating) is a viable short term strategy. However, it tends to change the conditions in such a way that cheaters are no longer rewarded and co-operation is the best long range strategy. At present, AFAIK, those statements are conjectures based on observation, computer models, and the "gut feel" of mathematicians. They haven't been proven yet. But at least the first few halting steps along the path of an ethical system based on reason have been taken, and it seems to agree, more or less in the few places where it can be compared at all, with the bulk of traditional morality. So, discussions of cheating can be somewhat educational as well as entertaining, but to do so they rapidly go beyond what the average forum poster in the average forum can understand.

--Pete

[The Luminaire]

Yes master, we shall do as you say. :wacko:

Oh wait...we dont have to! And if there's something really worth reading on a pay site, Ill be happy to post it just so you *cant* read it. Dont be so quick to judge other people.

Maybe I should put it in terms slightly easier to understand: OMG NYTIMES BEST PAPER EVAR--GIEV MONEY~~!!!!!

Flame and you shall feel the burn. :angry:

[Conner Macleod]

I wasn't flaming, I was just saying. I clicked it, and it asked for all sorts of personal info. Hey, my mistake, I'm not into it. Takes a big man to say he's wrong, which I was. Old York Times is not a paper I read, or want to be associated with. I was just asking that the comments they make be quoted so I don't have to go outside of the Lounge to read them. Call me lazy, I am.

Either way. I don't mind the comments against me. I have nothing but respect for the people running this forum, because they have to work hard to support it. They are putting up their money for the hosting so we can spout our useless drivel that only a small number will ever see! If they don't want someone like me posting, let them tell me to go away. And I'll tell you what, if any Admin tells me to buzz off, I'm more than happy to oblidge. I'm not a rude person. Let them email me, not PM.

I've noticed tho that since I expressed my political views, I've been flamed more. Maybe that was a mistake. I've eliminated my avatar to make a broken link. Will that make the peace?

[ergates]

Hello.

Oh, and BTW, studies in game theory indicate that, under certain conditions, "cheating" (i.e., not cooperating) is a viable short term strategy.  However, it tends to change the conditions in such a way that cheaters are no longer rewarded and co-operation is the best long range strategy.  At present, AFAIK, those statements are conjectures based on observation, computer models, and the "gut feel" of mathematicians.  They haven't been proven yet.

Well, IIRC the problem here is to define the structure of the environment. If you impose too strong requirements on the environment everything is well provable but kind of trivial (e.g. all participants are totally incooperative then obviously any other strategy would loose). On the other hand if you try to treat the environment without any requirement you will end up with an chaotic highly non-linear system where you can not prove anything.
The gray area in between is quite interesting, though...
Additionally you can "play" with many parameters (e.g. reward for a successful cheat, etc.) which makes it challenging with respect to discrete mathematics.

But at least the first few halting steps along the path of an ethical system based on reason have been taken, and it seems to agree, more or less in the few places where it can be compared at all, with the bulk of traditional morality.

For my taste that is a bit optimistic. If you would start up with an easily structured environment (e.g. 90% eye-for-an-eye, 5% totally cooperative, 5% totally incooperative) there could be some useful results from science (be it the mathematician's way (prove) or the computer scientist's way (simulate)).
But in most of the real-life cases I would rather assume that the environment is highly chaotic and thus proving fails (due to complexity) while simulating only gives short term "weather forecasts". Not a good thing to base an ethical system on this...

Bye,
ergates