slimdrag00n wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 03:53

I stuck up for the guy thinking he did it all unintentional

Turns out the original thread was mostly about semantics, not intentionality...

Quote:

The guy has no honor and will obviously try to get away with anything.

I'd bet he has his own definition of "honor" much like some people here have their own for "cheating".

Alas, it would seem that many players who join special-rules games fall into his same group.

Quote:

they might as well all cheat and just wipe him off the face of all the planets.

That's usually called "gangbang", or "alliance", not "cheating".

Report message to a moderator

nmid wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 04:13

They are all murderers, just the scale differs.

Wrong analogy. We're comparing here a speedster against someone who has actually run down a pedestrian and her baby. Both are criminals, but the quality of the damage done is vastly different.

"Might do" or even "purposefully did" are secondary.

Report message to a moderator

m.a@stars wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 07:57

nmid wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 04:13 They are all murderers, just the scale differs. Wrong analogy. We're comparing here a speedster against someone who has actually run down a pedestrian and her baby. Both are criminals, but the quality of the damage done is vastly different. "Might do" or even "purposefully did" are secondary.

Ok, let's take your example.
Person A is a speedster
Person B is a speedster who is also guilty of taking life.

They both are speedsters, aren't they?

A cheater.
A cheater who got caught.
A cheater who got caught and continued bending rules to his advantage.
A cheater who spoilt the game by using "many cheats"/"listed cheats".

They are all cheaters.
I'll just be polite enough to not call the level I cheater, a cheater, as he didn't do it intentionally.
Which would mean no punishment.

Coming back to your example.. if the car has a mechanical problem and the break fails.. he's a speedster too... but I won't fine him for that.

Report message to a moderator

nmid wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 04:35

Person A is a speedster Person B is a speedster who is also guilty of taking life. They both are speedsters, aren't they?

No. B is a murderer who just happened to use a large machine as his weapon. No judge, jury, or law will undo the damage he's done.

Quote:

A cheater. A cheater who got caught. A cheater who got caught and continued bending rules to his advantage. A cheater who spoilt the game by using "many cheats"/"listed cheats". They are all cheaters.

But only the last one did any real damage beyond what a reasonable countermeasure could fix.

Quote:

Coming back to your example.. if the car has a mechanical problem and the break fails.. he's a speedster too... but I won't fine him for that.

But you should, as the machine's reliable working is his responsibility!

Report message to a moderator

m.a@stars wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 09:00

nmid wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 04:35 Person A is a speedster Person B is a speedster who is also guilty of taking life. They both are speedsters, aren't they? No. B is a murderer who just happened to use a large machine as his weapon. No judge, jury, or law will undo the damage he's done.

But they are both speedsters too.
Why take that away from Person B?
It's like saying that a "cheater" (your word definition), is not a stars player

m.a@stars wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 09:00

Quote: A cheater. A cheater who got caught. A cheater who got caught and continued bending rules to his advantage. A cheater who spoilt the game by using "many cheats"/"listed cheats". They are all cheaters. But only the last one did any real damage beyond what a reasonable countermeasure could fix.

I don't want to play a game which requires constant fixing.
Anyways, you are ignoring the main point.
They are all cheaters.

m.a@stars wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 09:00

Quote: Coming back to your example.. if the car has a mechanical problem and the break fails.. he's a speedster too... but I won't fine him for that. But you should, as the machine's reliable working is his responsibility!

Not if it's a HERTZ rental !

Report message to a moderator

Sigh, here we go again...

Report message to a moderator

Ron wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 09:22

Sigh, here we go again...

It's not about mac, it's about the fun in arguing about cheating.. .

Report message to a moderator

nmid wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 05:35

But they are both speedsters too. Why take that away from Person B?

Sure, fine him a couple hundred after you've fried him!

Quote:

It's like saying that a "cheater" (your word definition), is not a stars player

Well, now that you mention it, yeah, that's exactly what I would say. Because no-one will play against a true cheater, he's no longer a player!

Quote:

I don't want to play a game which requires constant fixing.

Neither do I, which is why you won't see me in games with overly complex or unenforceable rules.

Quote:

Anyways, you are ignoring the main point. They are all cheaters.

That is like saying that all men wear pants, even the criminals.

Quote:

Not if it's a HERTZ rental !

Tell that to the judge. If HERTZ was your accomplice that wouldn't make you less an offender.

Report message to a moderator

Ron wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 05:52

Sigh, here we go again...

I sure hope that new and fun thing you'll unveil soon is the Whiners Alley!

Report message to a moderator

m.a@stars wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 09:39

nmid wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 05:35 But they are both speedsters too. Why take that away from Person B? Sure, fine him a couple hundred after you've fried him!

But, he's a speedster nonetheless The vehicular manslaughter is another point all together.

Quote:

Quote: It's like saying that a "cheater" (your word definition), is not a stars player Well, now that you mention it, yeah, that's exactly what I would say. Because no-one will play against a true cheater, he's no longer a player!

But he was a stars player to have been in a position to cheat
and if it's not a Hard-core cheater, then he might cheat again

Quote:

Quote: I don't want to play a game which requires constant fixing. Neither do I, which is why you won't see me in games with overly complex or unenforceable rules.

But it can be fun !! Don't you get bored of the same rules?

Quote:

Quote: Anyways, you are ignoring the main point. They are all cheaters. That is like saying that all men wear pants, even the criminals.

Ofcourse, though some might wear kilts. .
Missing the main point again Is he a cheater or not?

Quote:

Quote: Not if it's a HERTZ rental ! Tell that to the judge. If HERTZ was your accomplice that wouldn't make you less an offender.

Well, the final obligation would be of HERTZ. HERTZ would have to reimburse the fine paid by the guy.

Now that I've answered every quote , the main point still exists.
Mac cheated. Magnitude is irrelevant. Intent is not.

Report message to a moderator

m.a@stars wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 09:42

Ron wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 05:52 Sigh, here we go again... I sure hope that new and fun thing you'll unveil soon is the Whiners Alley!

It won't exist for games where the host is practical and unintentional mistakes/intentional cheating are differentiated .

[Updated on: Thu, 12 May 2011 00:20]

Report message to a moderator

nmid wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 06:17

But, he's a speedster nonetheless The vehicular manslaughter is another point all together.

The main point, actually.

Quote:

But he was a stars player to have been in a position to cheat

You said it: was.

Quote:

and if it's not a Hard-core cheater, then he might cheat again

By some people's definition of "cheat", yes indeed.

Quote:

But it can be fun !! Don't you get bored of the same rules?

Almost never, when they are good. I sometimes engage in experimental games, but many of those are hardly worth the effort.

Quote:

Missing the main point again Is he a cheater or not?

By my definition, he'd actually be the only one that could be called that. By your definition, who knows, as everybody can be called that!

Quote:

Well, the final obligation would be of HERTZ. HERTZ would have to reimburse the fine paid by the guy.

Of course. But the police records would still show his name.

Quote:

Mac cheated. Magnitude is irrelevant. Intent is not.

Mac didn't cheat, by the old definition of the term. Intent is irrelevant, magnitude is not.

By the new definition of the word, who cares anyway, when every single player will be labeled and publicly pilloried as cheater.

Report message to a moderator

nmid wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 06:19

It won't exist for games where the host is practical and unintentional mistakes/intentional cheating are differentiated .

Whiners will always exist!! Even more if you encourage them!

Report message to a moderator

m.a@stars wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 10:07

nmid wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 06:17 But, he's a speedster nonetheless The vehicular manslaughter is another point all together. The main point, actually.

Nope. For me it's a secondary effect that wouldn't have happened if the guy hadn't been speeding.
I'm not talking if he did something horrible because of speeding.
The point is that he speeded.
In stars, if no one cheated, then we won't have to talk about magnitude and the list-of-cheats.
Only if a person cheats, do we talk about 'the level' of cheating.

Quote:

Quote: But he was a stars player to have been in a position to cheat You said it: was.

lol. I did.
So you agree that a person has to be a cheater, in order to have cheated enough to break one of the "listed-cheats".
Similarly, he has to have cheated if he's broken host-rules as well.

Quote:

Quote: and if it's not a Hard-core cheater, then he might cheat again By some people's definition of "cheat", yes indeed.

Glad we atleast agree that there are 2 definitions of "cheat".
Phew.
So new players/hosts will know that the person might be "careless"/"cheating" in other games.

Quote:

Quote: Missing the main point again Is he a cheater or not? By my definition, he'd actually be the only one that could be called that. By your definition, who knows, as everybody can be called that!

Confused.
Mac didn't break the "list".
How's he a "cheater" as per your definition?
By my definition, only those who intentionally break host/game rules are cheaters. That doesn't make everyone a cheater.
I hope I don't have to state everytime that intent matters. Careless mistakes aren't the same as intentional rule-breaking aka cheating.

Quote:

Quote: Well, the final obligation would be of HERTZ. HERTZ would have to reimburse the fine paid by the guy. Of course. But the police records would still show his name.

Is that so?
Well, as long as I get the chance to tell the next judge that it was on account of a rented car that malfunctioned.

Quote:

Quote: Mac cheated. Magnitude is irrelevant. Intent is not. Mac didn't cheat, by the old definition of the term. Intent is irrelevant, magnitude is not. By the new definition of the word, who cares anyway, when every single player will be labeled and publicly pilloried as cheater.

Who defined the old word?
Why does it need definition?
Aren't we using English that already has words defined and enough words to take care of variations?
Why do we need to change meanings of words, for creating stars lexicon?

Report message to a moderator

m.a@stars wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 10:08

nmid wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 06:19 It won't exist for games where the host is practical and unintentional mistakes/intentional cheating are differentiated . Whiners will always exist!! Even more if you encourage them!

I agree.. but there's a difference between whiners/complainers/whistle-blowers/valid complaints.

What do you consider this?
Valid facts.
Documented mistakes.
Continued mistakes.
Recorded punishments.
Uncorrected rewards.

Hmmmm.

Report message to a moderator

nmid wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 07:02

I agree.. but there's a difference between whiners/complainers/whistle-blowers/valid complaints. What do you consider this? Valid facts. Documented mistakes. Continued mistakes. Recorded punishments. Uncorrected rewards. Hmmmm.

You lost me there. Care to elaborate?

Report message to a moderator

nmid wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 06:57

I'm not talking if he did something horrible because of speeding. The point is that he speeded.

So, if I'm reading you right, it's not the consequences but the mere fact of breaking the law that matters to you?

Quote:

if no one cheated, then we won't have to talk about magnitude and the list-of-cheats. Only if a person cheats, do we talk about 'the level' of cheating.

That's what you get when you start mixing all kinds of misdemeanors together. You are then forced to consider relative levels and magnitudes and whatnot.

Quote:

So you agree that a person has to be a cheater, in order to have cheated enough to break one of the "listed-cheats".

"Enough"? Either he used one of the cheats (old or new) or he didn't. There's no "levels" of that.

Quote:

Similarly, he has to have cheated if he's broken host-rules as well.

Only in your definition where it seems everything not in line with someone's rules (or wishes) is "cheating".

Quote:

So new players/hosts will know that the person might be "careless"/"cheating" in other games.

Only in "special-rules" games, of course. And players/hosts in those need to be wary anyway. The "rule-bender/breaker" label used to be plenty enough for their convenience.

Quote:

Confused. Mac didn't break the "list". How's he a "cheater" as per your definition?

We weren't talking here about Mac, but about your fancy listing of

Quote:

A cheater. A cheater who got caught. A cheater who got caught and continued bending rules to his advantage. A cheater who spoilt the game by using "many cheats"/"listed cheats".

Quote:

By my definition, only those who intentionally break host/game rules are cheaters. That doesn't make everyone a cheater.

Once you throw "intentionality" into the mix, yes it does, because more often than not it'll be a subjective assessment, and there'll always be someone who'll take the hardest stance.

Quote:

I hope I don't have to state everytime that intent matters. Careless mistakes aren't the same as intentional rule-breaking aka cheating.

Oh yes, you'll have, because that's what your newfangled definition entails. Careless != intentional != cheating or madness ensues!

Quote:

Well, as long as I get the chance to tell the next judge that it was on account of a rented car that malfunctioned.

As long as he doesn't think you're a serial cheater...

Quote:

Who defined the old word?

Long years of endless flamewars and personal grudges that didn't quite leave a lot more common ground than that.

Quote:

Why does it need definition?

Well, since it seems newcomers might get confused about the old simple rules, or might even try to confuse everyone by lumping together things that shouldn't be...

Quote:

Aren't we using English that already has words defined and enough words to take care of variations? Why do we need to change meanings of words, for creating stars lexicon?

This is not English class. This is the Stars! microcosm. We made our own Thesaurus and a few whiners shouldn't be allowed to alter it.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Thu, 12 May 2011 13:13]

Report message to a moderator

Folks, I think we can and should argue without quarrelling. While the definition is specific, its application is subjective (like the application of whiner or troll). In any exercise like this there will (I hope) be a spectrum of opinions. Even though m.a stars' interpretation is different than my own, I still see value in it.

Quote:

Cheating refers to the overt or covert breaking of rules to gain advantage in a competitive situation. The rules infringed may be explicit, or they may be from an unwritten code of conduct based on morality, ethics or custom, making the identification of cheating a subjective process.

Report message to a moderator

I agree with Neil 100% on his last post.
Opinions are just that for a reason.
I actually like what MA is doing and I agree with him in almost every aspect.
I just lost to much faith in his defendant.

I'm just a noobster and I have learned a lot from Ma and what Mac has done and for that I thank both of you.

Report message to a moderator

Eagle of Fire wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 19:01

I'll extend this to M.a.stars as well.

Good riddance! I won't miss you at all!

Report message to a moderator

vonKreedon wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 19:03

the evidence in these threads is that

The "evidence" of only a handful posters? If that's a representative sample of all the players then we have worse problems than a disagreement on semantics and custom.

Quote:

there is nothing like the concensus on defining cheating

There used to be. I agree the consensus is now probably gone.

Quote:

calling those of us with different understandings of what it means to cheat "whiners" is insulting.

I have been called a cheater myself in both these threads, entirely without reason and repeatedly. I have asked for apologies and received none, so what should I care about the whiners?

Report message to a moderator

slimdrag00n wrote on Thu, 12 May 2011 19:11

I don't see MA backing down unless he has more hard evidence. Mac using the mt ships isn't enough proof like it was to me. He just needs a little more evidence and there isn't anything wrong with that at all.

We're mixing apples and oranges here, as in the other thread. I cannot be the only one to see that.

On the other hand, EagleOfFUD's gratuitous dismissal of me as cheater is just the kind of unthinking reaction I've been trying to avoid all this time, to no avail, but he has provided me with the perfect example of why I'm right and those who disagree with me are entirely wrong.

Quote:

I would love to get permission to get my hands on his turn files at end game and check every detail to settle this once and for all.

That's been often done in other games, assuming the rules-breaking wasn't clear enough, but I'd say that's the Host's decision, particularly after he's already handed out punishment.

Report message to a moderator