"Syndrome" Syndrome: or the Fallacy of "Special"

[Abisashi]

Eventually, we might have to make a rule about genetic enhancement, but I foresee that would be a very very difficult rule to enforce.
...
Would it be cheating if my parents were both olympic sprinting champions? Is seletive breeding not genetic engineering of a sort?
...
This is a growing and interesting issue. Until recently we created special categories of competion for handicapped individuals like amputees because we could not create parts which adequately replaced their missing limbs. However, as our knowledge of prosthetics increases, we risk the point where the prosthetic limb might be one day superior to the one it replaced either in specific sports or generally. At that point, we will probably place various limits on the sorts of prostethetics which are usuable in an open competition, for example, unpowered prosthetics only, or must be no less than a minimum weight, or whatever. It would then be much like we place limits on what a bat may be constructed from when we play baseball at the professional level. And at that point, if you used an illegal prosthetic in competition, then it would be cheating.

I expect issues like these will eventually derail the Olympics, but maybe someone will come up with good answers and prove me wrong.

Nope. Doesn't work that way.

If I can bend space with my mind, or being in my presence makes all others drop to their knees and worship me (and thus choose not to compete), or if I never tire, I am not technically cheating at a Marathon (whether or not these specific examples are cheating aren't relevant; I am sure you can conceive of a super-power which is legal but makes it impossible for you to lose). These things are not cheating because the writers of the rules never considered them because they are impossible. If someone was discovered to have this power, and you were in charge of deciding whether they should receive their medal, would you give it to them? Would you feel they deserved it?

Edit: For this example, I mean in the real-world, in which there are no super-heroes and it is assumed they are literally impossible.

 

[Mark]

If I can bend space with my mind, or being in my presence makes all others drop to their knees and worship me (and thus choose not to compete), or if I never tire, I am not technically cheating at a Marathon (whether or not these specific examples are cheating aren't relevant; I am sure you can conceive of a super-power which is legal but makes it impossible for you to lose). These things are not cheating because the writers of the rules never considered them because they are impossible. If someone was discovered to have this power, and you were in charge of deciding whether they should receive their medal, would you give it to them? Would you feel they deserved it?

If people like that existed, and there were no rules to exclude them, then it would not be cheating for them to participate.

 

[Herobizkit]

... and this is where camp Magneto comes in.

Magneto asserts that he (and others) should not be forced to hide their powers, nor should they be forced to identify themselves to humanity. To be fair, the analogy the senator uses, comparing supers to loaded guns, is akin to current U.S. 'concealed carry' laws. While some states do limit the types of weapons that can be carried concealed, the fact remains that people still can. By the same token, supers should have protected rights and be allowed to "be super" without being hunted down.

(Apologies if the following statement is not 100% correct.) When Magneto decides to occupy Genosha, he is choosing to create a world for his fellow mutants - a world where, in fact, "everyone is special." Instead of mutants living with their fellow man, they can choose to live with their "real" fellow man... and where a foot race competition might be more of a competition.

Point is, the Incredibles shouldn't be presecuted for being super, nor should they have to hide their identities. If Syndrome had succeeded, he would have given power to those who could afford his inventions rather than everyone... and that's bad, and completely the opposite of the way he originally indended thinks is right. Either everyone is on the same playing field, or everyone is not.

 

[Abisashi]

If people like that existed, and there were no rules to exclude them, then it would not be cheating for them to participate.

I think we are talking past each other; I think we both agree it wouldn't literally be cheating, and I think we both understand what people would mean when they called it cheating.

 

[Mark]

I think we are talking past each other; I think we both agree it wouldn't literally be cheating, and I think we both understand what people would mean when they called it cheating.

Not only not literally cheating but also not figuratively cheating. Do you think people are misusing the word "cheating" as hyperbole instead of simply using the word "unfair" because they think it will help them win an argument? If so, then I think we do both understand.

 

[Celebrim]

I expect issues like these will eventually derail the Olympics, but maybe someone will come up with good answers and prove me wrong.

It's already happening. Oscar Pistorius is a double amputee that was banned from the 2008 Olympics (briefly) because the IOC didn't know whether his limbs constituted an unfair advantage. They reversed themselves back and forth a couple of times as the two sides of the questions rules lawyered and argued over it.

If someone was discovered to have this power, and you were in charge of deciding whether they should receive their medal, would you give it to them? Would you feel they deserved it?

This isn't as hypothetical of an issue as you think just because we are talking about superheroes. There are several real world sporting examples that come to mind. In the 1950's, American table tennis players used advances in paddle technology to develop a finger spun serve that even the best tennis players in the world (including themselves) couldn't return on the volley. The result was that new rules were created that made certain paddle constructions illegal and which made it illegal to hold the ball with your fingers on the serve. However, they didn't cheat and they didn't have to forfiet their victories. In the 1980's, the entire history of the America's Cup is one long series of competitors producing new innovations and breaking unwritten rules until finally some sanity was reintroduced. It was both good and bad for competition, but it wasn't cheating (although some people thought so, and there were some tense moments when teams had to prove that they weren't).

 

[Abisashi]

Not only not literally cheating but also not figuratively cheating. Do you think people are misusing the word "cheating" as hyperbole instead of simply using the word "unfair" because they think it will help them win an argument? If so, then I think we do both understand.

I think people are using the word cheating in this thread to include behaviors that they feel ought to be be illegal, or that would be made illegal once their existence came to the attention of the rule-makers (if possible; many people noted the difficulty in enforcing these rules).


Edit: Celebrim: Hopefully this post's definition clarifies what I was trying to say. I would give the super-person their medal, but I wouldn't be happy about it.

EditEdit: Also, thanks for the interesting examples; I was aware of Oscar Pistorius, but not the table-tennis or America's Cup.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Obsessing with who said a given line is completely beside the point.

Wait... what?

This is standard operating procedure in Hollywood, and might be in writing 101. Easiest way to set up a straw man is to put the argument in the mouth of the jerk who is always wrong.

I believe that the makers of the film have disagreed with you. I won't have time to rewatch the commentary tonight, but I am almost certain that they stated that the message of the film is exactly what Hobo said it was. If I have a chance to get to it this week, I'll be happy to quote them word for word as to the underlying message of the film.


RC

Sadly, more than 10 years in academia has proven this to me.... The creator's conscious intent is irrelevant (link NSFW)

One can read or view a work and construct multiple internally consistent frameworks to explain that work. I have seen multiple occasions when a creator was presented such a analysis and the response was some version of the following:

"Huh. That's interesting. I didn't realize I had said that."

"You mean that's not what you meant?"

"No, it's exactly what I meant. I just didn't realize I meant it until you showed me this. Who wrote this? I think I need to collaborate with them on something."

One of these was an analysis of data on bird song, so it works just as well in the sciences.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the cats at Pixar would have such a reaction to Celebrim's analysis, particularly the part about Elastigirl's role as a mother (which is excellent work, btw).

As for the game issue....

Are pre-4e casters really more special than everyone else? Seems we have a lot of people saying, "yes, we saw that problem" and a lot of people saying "no, I never saw that problem."

So, we have a potential problem which manifested at some tables and not others. Here's the sticking point for me, possibly because I'm a scientist.... negative evidence means nothing. Just because you don't know anyone personally who has used offshore accounts to escape from paying taxes or to launder money doesn't mean that those things aren't problems. I personally have never met a serial killer, nor lived somewhere one was operating. This is not evidence that serial killers do not exist. If I claimed this to be the case, I would clearly be wrong. That does not invalidate my experience of a serial killer free world. It just means that I am either lucky or blessed with a skill for avoiding serial killers. Or I'm just oblivious, but in our media-saturated world, that might be a superpower.

But I digress....

Let's say we're writing a new set of rules, and this potential problem with caster classes has come to our attention. We don't even know if it really is a problem, but there's some evidence for it here and there. What is the best way to address it?

Well, we can ignore it. Ostrich syndrome is not a very proactive stance, though. We can go to each and every table that has the problem, and try to apply band aids to fix it. That's time consuming, and probably impossible. In some cases, it would require curing jerkiness, power-gaming, or both. These are terminal conditions for most adults, IME, so that's not a viable choice. Or we can write the rules to close the loopholes in the first place.

3rd one feels about right to me.

 

[Ourph]

The point isn't that Dash wants to win races, per se, but rather that he doesn't want to hide who he is.

I disagree with this. I think Dash wants to be himself and his "vision" of that self is a boy who always wins races, a boy who is recognized as super by everyone. What he doesn't realize (and what his parents are presumably attempting to teach him) is that an existence like that can be very lonely and unfulfilling. This is the existence that Syndrome chooses, one where his only human contact is with sycophants, servants or enemies.

It's why superheroes have secret identities. Superman doesn't need to be Clark Kent because he has to have the paycheck or he doesn't have anything better to do with his time than work a crappy reporter job. He needs to be Clark Kent because it's the only way he can interact with people in a normal and fulfilling way. Superman (ignoring the whole "Superfriends" phenomenon) doesn't have friends, he has fans. Clark Kent has friends.

 

[Mark]

I disagree with this. I think Dash wants to be himself and his "vision" of that self is a boy who always wins races, a boy who is recognized as super by everyone.

I think you are overreaching. I think Dash would be happy being himself, even if being challenged by others who were also similarly fast. I think he just doesn't see himself as someone who throws races, and it bothers him. What his parents, presumptions aside, are trying to teach him is what they have misguidedly come to believe, which is that they need to hide and not be themselves, pursuing a paradigm of happiness that simply is not fulfilling for them or their children.