Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="swrushing" data-source="post: 2821279" data-attributes="member: 14140">Actually, YOUR definition makes the thread pointless.If we limit the very definition of thw word cheating to include "must have bad results or negative consequences in addition to the act of violating the rules itself" then the question of is cheating ever acceptable or "should you care about cheating" become one sided non-issues.There was a thread in which the question "is railroading always bad" was asked and by page two the definition some people wanted for railroading was "doing ABC in such a way that it causes bad results."Cheating is a willful violation of the rules of the game.That definition leads to this being a discussion.That definition leads to Jim Hague apparently seeing the intrinsic harm caused by the violation of trust to outweigh any of the ptoential positive uses, a "cure is worse than the disease" notion and thus have a reasoned opinion as to why the answer is "never cheat". I don't agree with him, but i at least can see reason in his position.That definition leads to me not seeing it as outweighing all of the potential uses and seeing it literally as a technique, one which has some negative issues associated with it but which sometimes can be used well and for benefit of the game. I will leave others to determine for themselves whether it is "reasoned".Come along four pahes in and redefine cheating as "must also carry other bad consewuences" and you undermine both of our positions by removing the reasoned part, the judgement part, and simply making it an axiom, a matter of fact, a definition, turning the debate into... less than itwas and thats saying something. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":-)" title="Smile    :-)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":-)" />In summary...if one assumes the definition of cheating to include not only "willful violation of the rules" but also "for personal gain or harm to other participants in terms of consequences beyond the violation of rules itself" then I whole heartily agree cheating is bad and should likely be cared about much so. if you are one who goes with the above definition, what do you call the "got one more healing potion" technique or the "i missed, guess you will have to kill him" technique when the game rules do not allow such? What is the definition for "violated the rules but for someone else?" you would rather we use?In contrast, if one assumes cheating by definition to include only "willful violation of the rules", then cheating can be bad or not, can produce bad results or not, and can even produce good results and should be judged and evaluated based on those results.</blockquote>

Verification