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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8637498" data-attributes="member: 71699">Sorry, I misled you on Huizinga there. Here is the relevant section from Homo Ludens. He's thinking about a number of different behaviours to do with trespassing against the rules (not solely cheating):Cheating has been a subject of ongong debate. Here from Salen and Zimmerman:The normal view as I understand it is that the "cheat breaks the rules but remains within the space of play. What I outlined was in no way an approbation of cheating, rather I wanted to draw your attention to three thought-experiments that I have found helpful to gain insight on this behaviour<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">A game is enjoyed by all and concludes to great satisfaction</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">An observer however, then describes that Addy cheated - harming those feelings of enjoyment and satisfaction</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Some time later, proof emerges that Addy did not in fact cheat</li> </ol>I won't offer any specific conclusion, as I found this useful just to reflect on. And contrast too, with the massively inept player, so that Addy did indeed break the rules but without intent to cheat.In other commentary, it is emphasised further that the cheater must be a sincere participant. Too sincere, in some cases: suspending a rule interfering with their fulfilment of game purposes (such as when oriented to strongly toward Score - Achievement.) In any case, the cheat (and the massively inept player) are both able to put some rules in force for themselves, and not others, while others in the same circle (i.e. playing in the same game session) continue to hold those same rules binding upon themselves.Yes, precisely. The infinite regress is clearly absurd, and must be broken by something other than a rule that leads to agreement.It is Bjork and Holopainen who suggest they ought be called exogenous rules. Because of the regress you noticed  above, I agree with you that it is wrong to call them "rules" at all. Principles or ethos are both better. There's pretty extensive discourse on the preconditions for rule acceptance and play. Where we may continue to disagree is that I say that these (largely unwritten) principles or ethos underpin our decisions about the rules we put in force for ourselves.In my suggestion about "rules" on the threshold of the circle, I should be clearer that I am thinking about rules (and not principles or ethos).</blockquote>

Verification