What is your view on video game cheating?

[Lord Raven]

Maybe it's not pervasive, but to act in such ways reinforces such attitudes. I disagree that it is neither a good or a bad thing, I think such attitude are always bad.

How is being selfish towards your entertainment negative?

Unless a game is intended to be replayed many times as part of its experience, I don't understand what is so difficult to understand about intuiting that we don't need to play it 50 times to have been able to experience the work on it's own terms. I did not say you should only do it once, I said at least once, because if you refuse to do it even once then you're eliminating a more valuable experience and reinforcing a negative attitude.

How is the experience more valuable? How is being selfish towards your choice of entertainment negative?

I'm also not even saying that you're saying that you need to play a game 50 times, I'm saying that even one playthrough is an arbitrary cutoff point. Playing the game vanilla is still not inherently more valuable than playing a modified form of it. This is all a matter of taste and how people choose to enjoy their entertainment.

Your attempt to equate not finishing a game or avoiding games to being insular doesn't make sense. It is reasonable to make judgements about investments of your time and money, and considering that there is an essentially infinite amount of media out there to consume, choosing to focus one's time and money to other things can be justified in many different ways, and I would not assume someone is self centered because of that. Engaging with ideas you find interesting would only be insular if you only tolerate ideas that match yours or cater to your viewpoint.

Yes it does, not trying video games because you don't think you'll like it is being insular. Not finishing a game is insular, because you're cutting the creator off as soon as you become disatisfied without hearing their full voice. You said you were against people saying that video games were the creator trying to convince you that it was good, but you're not against people leaving games unfinished - even though this is the expression of someone who shares that mentality.

Misread. Would need context on why those parts need to be skipped.

Because it's not a portion of the game people value? For an example, walking from one place to another in FF12 is tedious as hell, if you could cheat to skip the long then is it inherently morally wrong or being a douchebag? Also in FF12 - you open up the wrong chest at random and miss the Zodiac Spear, so you cheat it in after you get to the point where you get the Zodiac Spear. Or you want to experience the story in a JRPG in general and don't want to deal with some of its more tedious or grindy aspects in general, and two hours in you realize you wouldn't like grinding or any of that, is it morally wrong or being a douchebag to cheat it?

I would actually agree that viewing a game solely as art is an overly restrictive viewpoint, but I don't see what that has to do with this scenario, because as far as I can tell you're advocating the opposite, that people should ignore the artistic qualities entirely.

Cheating is a gameplay thing, and not all of the artistic parts of a game are gameplay based. This is more or less giving people personal autonomy over their own entertainment, and not viewing their experience - however they want to enjoy it - as self-harm. I'm not saying to take away all artistic merit, because not all gameplay is artistic. In fact, if someone is cheating just to get through the gameplay and enjoy the aristic qualities - story, characters, atmosphere, and music - what do you say to that?

Again, you don't have to agree with the creator? If you understand their ideas, but you disagree with them, then I have not said that's a bad thing at all. The only thing I would say is that you attempt to understand them.

Then it's clear you can understand the creator without following their intentions.

Talking about not cheating as if it is a command from the creator is an extremely disingenous way of describing this scenario. They are not telling you to play the game in a particular way, they're presenting a work which you can engage with, but the work is presented with some manner of restrictions because restrictions are neccessary to actually cultivate possibility space. A game with no rules whatsoever cannot exist because you need rules for there to be a game. Your arguments become increasingly more hedonistic by the minute, because whilst it's perfectly acceptable to say you don't agree with the viewpoint of the creator, to say that it's completely irrelevant again presumes the game is about you or for you, and whatever's being conveyed to you only matters insofar as it makes you feel good. It can't be irrelevant because those ideas are wrapped up in the work itself. The only way you can consider them irrelevant is within an aforementioned self centred view, where things only matter if you deem they matter. Frankly, if you consider pleasure to be the highest moral good then this discussion really can't go anywhere really.

Saying the creator's view is irrelevant != thinking the game is about you. As it stands, is it unreasonable to say that games are made for the gamers? So again, why does it matter what the creator thinks when we've fulfilled our duty - to pay for the game. In the end it just sounds like you want people to play and appreciate games the way you appreciate them, when not everyone does.

I can't tell if you ignored the rest of my paragraph or just think it's irrelevant, you just said it was "hedonistic" which is meant to be an insult or a label or what? In either case, it's irrelevant, because my argument is not that pleasure is the greatest good, it's that cheating in a single player game is not something that's immoral or even an issue of morals. The game is in quite a bit of ways meant for entertainment, so what is wrong with utilizing the entertainment aspect to the point that you want?

I'm saying that if someone is giving what amounts to a command, it is irrelevant to me. There's no rhyme or reason behind it. If someone gives actual explanation with respect to what they want, then it's easy to understand without agreeing.

You'd only be able to understand them in a detached sense rather than a personal sense. Reading a summary or review of a work may give you an idea, but your own engagement with the work and what you think is being conveyed isn't always going to be the same.

I don't see how "a finished playthrough" is a benchmark, that's my point.

It is certainly possible to recognise value and still act in defiance of that value, yes. One can recognise that trying to behave pleasantly towards others is valuable, yet willfully choose to not do so because it benefits them in some manner. This is a failing of moral character. "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak" after all.

Cheating in video games != being a dick to people.

I understand that many don't care, and I think that this is a problem in more ways than one. Many people also don't care about empiricism or consistency, and I think that is also a problem. I see your argument as relativistic because you are trying to argue that value is subjective, therefore any actions one takes should only be in accordance to what one percieves as valuable, rather than there being things that are valuable intrinsically and those who do not value them are wrong.

No, I'm saying that people should enjoy video games however they value them. I'm not saying anything else about relativism. If people don't value a game, a conclusion they often come to after playing it, they either a) drop it, b) not play/buy it, or c) cheat. None of those options are preferably, and in some ways a and c are preferable to b because at least they're contributing funds to the creator. At least a and c gave it a shot!

Warping (and potentially eliminating) one's experience of a work that is intrinsically valuable. You assert that it isn't intrinsically more valuable than a slightly repackaged one because all value is subjective.

I didn't say all value is subjective. I said that people assign different value to video games than you do. This isn't me saying "not murdering other people is a subjective value", this is me saying "people value their video game experiences much differently than others for a variety of reasons, and have their preferences as to how to experience it."

It expresses and reinforces entitled behaviour, which is connected to self centeredness and insular attitudes. I believe these are fundamentally bad things in all aspects of human conduct.

Human conduct towards who? A single-player game is an insular experience as is - you're not in contact with people, so how can there be human conduct? You can argue this is a private transgression, but that would require one to believe that this is a transgression to begin with - which again I do not agree with.

Neither. It's as simple as saying I don't think people should be douchebags.

Cheating in single player != douchebags. Edited October 22, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Irysa]

I am beginning to tire of this discussion because I am getting the strong impression you are not making an effort to actually read what I'm saying, and instead are trying to find any sort of leverage to force me to reclarify my position, whilst continously refusing to acknowledge things you yourself have said. You literally say things like

Yes, all value is subjective. I value an author's creative work so I do not cheat or break the creator's vision especially on my first playthrough.

When I ask you a direct question of

Do you consider all value to be subjective?

And now you say

I didn't say all value is subjective.

That is literally what you said. How am I supposed to have a discussion with you if you can't even stay consistent for one page? The argument you made was a relativistic one. You're doing a Donald here man.

I think my position is fairly robust, and I would be happy to continue explaining it (although some more clarification on your part for as to why every individual's own values are the only important things WRT videogames would be nice), but not if you're going to do stuff like this.

Edited October 22, 2016 by Irysa

[Lord Raven]

I am beginning to tire of this discussion because I am getting the strong impression you are not making an effort to actually read what I'm saying, and instead are trying to find any sort of leverage to force me to reclarify my position, whilst continously refusing to acknowledge things you yourself have said. You literally say things like

I have read what you're saying, your argument is ultimately just condescension towards people who don't value games the way you do. You're also saying this is morally inferior, which is not true not because all morals and values are subjective but because this particular one is. I'm seriously questioning some parts of your argument on the grounds that your argument seems very arbitrary.

I'm not sure how being selfish is morally bad if it's not pervasive. Isn't pervasiveness what makes something morally wrong or do you not agree on that? You said that self-harm is morally wrong, but self-harm in some ways does affect others by inciting worry. What does cheating in private in a single-player game do exactly to other people? Even if it is self-harm, it is not pervasiveness in any way, nor will it even be pervasive to anyone.

You're also saying it reinforces being selfish - so does this imply you believe that people are selfish because they cheat in video games, or does this imply that people will become more selfish/close-minded because they cheat in video games? Or are you just saying that being selfish is bad no matter what, even if it doesn't affect other people? In which case, that is definitely subjective. I'm asking you to clarify what you're saying because you're not being entirely clear in the stuff you say. You bring up arguments come off as very questionable, so naturally I question them.

When I ask you a direct question of

And now you say

That is literally what you said. How am I supposed to have a discussion with you if you can't even stay consistent for one page? The argument you made was a relativistic one. You're doing a Donald here man.

I was meaning "all value" in the context of the discussion, which was with respect to video games. I chose my words wrong. Sue me. My stance hasn't changed, the context with which I thought I was responding to was strictly in the realm of video games, which I'm asserting is highly distinct from moral values when it comes to interpersonal interactions. Which is perfectly consistent with my view that single-player games are fine to cheat in, and multiplayer are not.

The argument I'm making is subjective in one context, in the same way everyone's taste in video games is subjective. And because the context in which I thought I was responding was much broader than what I thought, you're saying that I'm contradicting myself? No, I just don't know what you meant by "values" or "valuable," I thought you were referring to how people place different weights to things they look for specifically in art and video games, not values as in actual moral values.

You're harping on my interpretation of a word you used, and I went in-line with your interpretation later. In any case, it's definitely my bad for not acknowledging that earlier.

(although some more clarification on your part for as to why every individual's own values are the only important things WRT videogames would be nice)

My opinion on this is that they're the ones who bought and are playing the game, so they should be allowed to do what they want to it so long as they are only affecting themselves. If someone has the ability to customize things and they want to do it, then it should be up to them to cater their experience to however they want, using the original as a sort of guide or something. I personally that if designers offered more options to play games or options to cheat the game as opposed to discouraging it, then it allows designers to also take more risks with their baseline game as opposed to having to cater it to people (that way people can just mod it out themselves), but that's also kind of a stretch that may or may not be relevant to the discussion. As a whole to me this argument is more about open source vs closed source, and why I believe more things should be the former rather than the latter, as opposed to staying within the confines of what a game forces.

Edited October 22, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Irysa]

I have read what you're saying, your argument is ultimately just condescension towards people who don't value games the way you do. You're also saying this is morally inferior, which is not true not because all morals and values are subjective but because this particular one is. I'm seriously questioning some parts of your argument on the grounds that your argument seems very arbitrary.

I'm not sure how being selfish is morally bad if it's not pervasive. Isn't pervasiveness what makes something morally wrong or do you not agree on that? You said that self-harm is morally wrong, but self-harm in some ways does affect others by inciting worry. What does cheating in private in a single-player game do exactly to other people? Even if it is self-harm, it is not pervasiveness in any way, nor will it even be pervasive to anyone.

You're also saying it reinforces being selfish - so does this imply you believe that people are selfish because they cheat in video games, or does this imply that people will become more selfish/close-minded because they cheat in video games? Or are you just saying that being selfish is bad no matter what, even if it doesn't affect other people? In which case, that is definitely subjective. I'm asking you to clarify what you're saying because you're not being entirely clear in the stuff you say. You bring up arguments come off as very questionable, so naturally I question them.

I think I've repeatedly clarified why it is not purely arbitrary, because there are reasons behind that distinction. The axiom I'm working off is that harm is bad and being self centred is bad. Do you disagree with these axioms? If not, then the first disagreement is primarily over whether there is objectively more value in X than Y, in which case if you don't accept that it's intuitively obvious that a modified repackage from someone who was not involved in the creative process is less valuable than the final product then I think you're a philistine (or at the least, are an advocate of it).

The second disagreement seems to be about selfishness. I do not agree that selfishness is not morally bad as long as it is not pervasive. No human can compartmentalise their attitudes like that. Whilst it is within people's right to hold unfair prejudice against others (and heck, it's normal, practically unavoidable), I do not think it is a good thing to harbor unfair prejudices, even if every effort is made to avoid letting them affect your behaviour. Even if it did not affect your behaviour, to hold the attitude is undesirable. I am not a consequentialist. I do not agree that it is subjective that selfish attitudes are only bad if they affect others, much in the same way that I do not believe that many negative character qualities and behaviours only matter if they hurt others. To be dramatic about it, you can view these kinds of behaviours as corrupting.

Note, I am not saying we must all be ascetic, but I think that we must have this as a principle and recognise such faults, rather than just be permissive and say "it's fine".

You're harping on my interpretation of a word you used, and I went in-line with your interpretation later. In any case, it's definitely my bad for not acknowledging that earlier.

I said all, so I think that was pretty clear, especially when I started making accusations of relativistim at you.

If you consider "thats arbitrary" to be a sound rebuttal of my points, then can ask I how it is not an arbitrary position to claim that because other people don't care much about particular things that the value is subjective? It doesn't follow.

My opinion on this is that they're the ones who bought and are playing the game, so they should be allowed to do what they want to it so long as they are only affecting themselves. If someone has the ability to customize things and they want to do it, then it should be up to them to cater their experience to however they want, using the original as a sort of guide or something. I personally that if designers offered more options to play games or options to cheat the game as opposed to discouraging it, then it allows designers to also take more risks with their baseline game as opposed to having to cater it to people (that way people can just mod it out themselves), but that's also kind of a stretch that may or may not be relevant to the discussion. As a whole to me this argument is more about open source vs closed source, and why I believe more things should be the former rather than the latter, as opposed to staying within the confines of what a game forces.

I agree you should be allowed to. I did not say anyone should not be allowed to. People need to be free to make such choices, but I do not accept that just because they made that free choice that their result is therefore justified/correct, even if it only relates to themselves.

Look at it this way, should people be allowed to burn books they buy? Yes. Should people be allowed to do that in groups? Yes.

Should people participate in mass book burnings?

No.

Edited October 23, 2016 by Irysa

[Lord Raven]

I started my post after your edits, so I'll re-edit.

I think I've repeatedly clarified why it is not purely arbitrary, because there are reasons behind that distinction. The axiom I'm working off is that harm is bad and being self centred is bad. Do you disagree with these axioms?

Self-harm is bad, self-centeredness depends on context.

If not, then the first disagreement is primarily over whether there is objectively more value in X than Y, in which case if you don't accept that it's intuitively obvious that a modified repackage from someone who was not involved in the creative process is less valuable than the final product then I think you're a philistine (or at the least, are an advocate of it).

I do not accept that there is objectively more value in X than Y, but I am also not a philistine nor am I an advocate of being a philistine. You're conflating cheating in video games to active hostility against art in video games.

I brought up asking what you thought of someone who tries to cheat through a difficult game to appreciate the music/atmosphere/characters/plot so they don't have to deal with gameplay they don't necessarily want to take time with, is that being a philistine then if you cheat in order to deal with the parts of said game that you personally value?

I do not agree that selfishness is not morally bad as long as it is not pervasive. No human can compartmentalise their attitudes like that. Whilst it is within people's right to hold unfair prejudice against others (and heck, it's normal, practically unavoidable), I do not think it is a good thing to harbor unfair prejudices, even if every effort is made to avoid letting them affect your behaviour. Even if it did not affect your behaviour, to hold the attitude is undesirable. I am not a consequentialist. I do not agree that it is subjective that selfish attitudes are only bad if they affect others, much in the same way that I do not believe that many negative character qualities and behaviours only matter if they hurt others. To be dramatic about it, you can view these kinds of behaviours as corrupting.

Note, I am not saying we must all be ascetic, but I think that we must have this as a principle and recognise such faults, rather than just be permissive and say "it's fine".

This is selfishness in literally one context, and it's not something that is actively harmful with selfishness. With bigotry, it's different because you shape your perception of a person or thing before you meet them, and has historically led to hostile interactions.

However, this is not indicative of anyone's attitude outside of playing video games; is the person playing Grand Theft Auto an inherently violent person and horrible driver because they like driving on the sidewalks? You're correlating the way someone chooses to plays a video game to their actual attitude. You're also invoking a slippery slope with "cheating in a video game is corrupting," after saying you aren't a consequentialist. This appears to be a similar argument to the "violence in video games."

Calling it cheating is enough acknowledgment of it as a fault, if it were one, since the term has a huge negative connotation especially with regards to any environment outside of a single-player game, so it's pretty obvious given the words used and the connotation that it's not something that is encouraged outside of privately doing so.

I said all, so I think that was pretty clear, especially when I started making accusations of relativistim at you.

There's a reason I rejected the relativism label, because I was wondering where it came from when I merely talked about those "values" as taste. If nothing else the content of my post implied as much, and this one word shouldn't make me come off as self-contradictory.

If you consider "thats arbitrary" to be a sound rebuttal of my points, then can ask I how it is not an arbitrary position to claim that because other people don't care much about particular things that the value is subjective? It doesn't follow.

Because that's the definition of subjective. If people value certain parts of a video game over others - basically if they think parts of the experience are a drag and others like it - that's a result of taste. If someone decides to cheat and someone else grins and bears it - is one of them morally wrong for taking action against it?

I point you back to the FF12 example I used above; is cheating wrong if you don't want to take the full hour to go from one point to another (which exists in the game by the way) and instead want to cheat in a warp point? Is all cheating wrong then, or is it okay to cheat if it's logical? It's not something that's broken and not an objective issue with the game (some don't mind it, some do), but it's still cheating and going against the game.

I agree you should be allowed to. I did not say anyone should not be allowed to. People need to be free to make such choices, but I do not accept that just because they made that free choice that their result is therefore justified/correct, even if it only relates to themselves.

Look at it this way, should people be allowed to burn books they buy? Yes. Should people be allowed to do that in groups? Yes.

Should people participate in mass book burnings?

No.

Are we talking about everyone cheating or just people have the right to cheat? Or are you advocating against an organized nation-wide cheating in a video game?

I mean at this point you're arguing that "just because it's your choice doesn't mean it's right," so at this point are we just discussing the nuts and bolts of the broader logic that people use to justify this? That seems to be your purpose, and I'm still unsure as to whether or not it's a devil's advocate or if you staunchly believe that people who cheat are morally inferior.

Edited October 23, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Irysa]

I do not accept that there is objectively more value in X than Y, but I am also not a philistine nor am I an advocate of being a philistine. You're conflating cheating in video games to active hostility against art in video games.

I brought up asking what you thought of someone who tries to cheat through a difficult game to appreciate the music/atmosphere/characters/plot so they don't have to deal with gameplay they don't necessarily want to take time with, is that being a philistine then if you cheat in order to deal with the parts of said game that you personally value?

Philistinism doesn't merely encompasse active hostility to art. Embracing art to appear sophisticated without any appreciation for it, trivialising it, or being so caught up in contemporary genteel ideas that that are less of a culture themselves rather than an algamation of popular ideas that lack any sort of unity, to the point where you can only define things by their inability to fit into your preferences...these are all valid descriptions of a philistine. It is a broad word.

Difficult gameplay is part of the work in the same way that over-complicated and difficult to read prose is in a book. Seeking help with trying to get to grips with it would not be bad though, but again, if you're just going to cheat to get to the part "you" care about then yes, it's a problem (although it may not neccessarily be philistinism, I only raised that because of your denial that X can ever be more valuable than Y in art).

This is selfishness in literally one context, and it's not something that is actively harmful with selfishness. With bigotry, it's different because you shape your perception of a person or thing before you meet them, and has historically led to hostile interactions.

However, this is not indicative of anyone's attitude outside of playing video games; is the person playing Grand Theft Auto an inherently violent person and horrible driver because they like driving on the sidewalks? You're correlating the way someone chooses to plays a video game to their actual attitude. You're also invoking a slippery slope with "cheating in a video game is corrupting," after saying you aren't a consequentialist. This appears to be a similar argument to the "violence in video games."

Calling it cheating is enough acknowledgment of it as a fault, if it were one, since the term has a huge negative connotation especially with regards to any environment outside of a single-player game, so it's pretty obvious given the words used and the connotation that it's not something that is encouraged outside of privately doing so.

Your rebuttals are somewhat self contradictory. Selfishness historically leads to hostile interactions as well, and bigotry can be completely internalised; one can hypothetically act as fairly and as pleasantly to those they harbour unfair prejudices against. The attitude is still undesirable. Or is bigotry okay as long as you're nice to everyone?

Trying to compare cathartic release to the way one chooses to repurpose art to fit their own personal preferences makes no sense. Violent behaviour in a game is not indicative of a violent attitude because it is completely compartmentalised within the game itself and thus doesn't deserve treatment any different to engaging with other media with violence in it. Cheating is on a different level, it is not an interaction within the game, it is an interaction WITH the game as an object. Cheating is not a mode of playing.

If the term "cheating" carries with it such negative connotations and is enough acknowledgement of a fault, then why are so many so permissive about it in SP scenarios? In reality, if it actually carried any of that weight, more would oppose it. Permissiveness of undesirable behaviours normalises them.

Because that's the definition of subjective. If people value certain parts of a video game over others - basically if they think parts of the experience are a drag and others like it - that's a result of taste. If someone decides to cheat and someone else grins and bears it - is one of them morally wrong for taking action against it?

I point you back to the FF12 example I used above; is cheating wrong if you don't want to take the full hour to go from one point to another (which exists in the game by the way) and instead want to cheat in a warp point? Is all cheating wrong then, or is it okay to cheat if it's logical? It's not something that's broken and not an objective issue with the game (some don't mind it, some do), but it's still cheating and going against the game.

Yes, people's preferences are subjective, but preferences are not evidence of such value being neccessarily subjective. Percieved value =/= actual value. And you already know the answer to your first question.

If you can't make a sound argument for why its fundamentally broken and an objective issue, it's always problem, but I acknowledge that there are many degrees of cheating, so it would not be as bad if the cheat had a slight impact compared to a major one. They would still all be undesirable however.

Are we talking about everyone cheating or just people have the right to cheat? Or are you advocating against an organized nation-wide cheating in a video game?

I mean at this point you're arguing that "just because it's your choice doesn't mean it's right," so at this point are we just discussing the nuts and bolts of the broader logic that people use to justify this? That seems to be your purpose, and I'm still unsure as to whether or not it's a devil's advocate or if you staunchly believe that people who cheat are morally inferior.

I'm advocating against the action of cheating in videogames, but asserting that I wholeheartedly support the freedom that enables them to do so. We must be allowed to make decisions like these.

I don't understand your second point about the "nuts and bolts of the broader logic".

I geninuely believe it is bad to cheat. I probably sound more haughty than intended regarding it though, because even at it's most eregious, it is a relatively trivial thing. Yet, I don't think the relative trivial nature of it excuses it.

Edited October 24, 2016 by Irysa

[DemolisherBPB]

Like cheating with in game cheat codes, well done for knowing them. Cheating with an action replay or such, single player is fine if thats what you want to do (I complete the game first before destroying it with silly cheats). It's fine in multiplayer so long as everyones agreed to it, like say playing Melee and its 3 v 1giga bowser. If your playing randoms, don't, you'll just ruin the fun for someone.

But then more common than 'cheating' now its exploiting bugs and glitches, Because even in competitive games some are okay and others aren't? Melee's competitive revolves around the strange bugs and programming choice (It is kinda amusing to watch young link fly), I mean these are fine again in a single player to ritchard around, multiplayer where everyone knows them and say "ok" is also fine, Random online people...feh...if they're doing it do it to win.

Games Done Quick is a good bugs, glitches, and exploits reel for people wanting to learn some.

[Lord Raven]

Philistinism doesn't merely encompasse active hostility to art. Embracing art to appear sophisticated without any appreciation for it, trivialising it, or being so caught up in contemporary genteel ideas that that are less of a culture themselves rather than an algamation of popular ideas that lack any sort of unity, to the point where you can only define things by their inability to fit into your preferences...these are all valid descriptions of a philistine. It is a broad word.

Difficult gameplay is part of the work in the same way that over-complicated and difficult to read prose is in a book. Seeking help with trying to get to grips with it would not be bad though, but again, if you're just going to cheat to get to the part "you" care about then yes, it's a problem (although it may not neccessarily be philistinism, I only raised that because of your denial that X can ever be more valuable than Y in art).

How is what I said related to advocating for people being philistines? You can't just throw out a word and have it be vaguely related, and not only that but you can't just throw out a label, and associate it with my viewpoint to make it come off as bad. In no way did I advocate for being philistines, because cheating in a video game is not always a result of that kind of thing.

Furthermore, if that's my assertion (that x can never be inherently more valuable than y in art) then how is throwing out a broad label to me even relevant? It's a very broad label, clearly used to bring down my point instead of actually counter it. To you it appears that being a philistine with someone who believes in subjectivity as well, whereas the dictionary definition is much more specific and what I was referring to:

a person who is hostile or indifferent to culture and the arts, or who has no understanding of them.

Having that said, not everyone's going to "understand" art the way other people do, and again this is all assuming video game is purely an artform, which is where this word becomes completely relevant, which it is not.

Your rebuttals are somewhat self contradictory. Selfishness historically leads to hostile interactions as well, and bigotry can be completely internalised; one can hypothetically act as fairly and as pleasantly to those they harbour unfair prejudices against. The attitude is still undesirable. Or is bigotry okay as long as you're nice to everyone?

Selfishness isn't an inherently negative reaction to someone else. Bigotry is. I would much rather people be selfish than bigoted, as would most people. However, this is also along the lines of associating cheating with selfishness, because cheating is about as selfish as playing any single-player game is selfish; it's such a broad use of the word that it seems almost meaningless to make it negative label. The majority of people play single-player video games for what amounts to selfish reasons; whether it be because they want to feel an experience for themselve, escape from real life, kill time, or be entertained.

I am actually personally fine with someone internalising their hatred, because everyone has their biases, because everyone has hatred internalized. This is probably where our values differ; I don't care about what is going through their heads until they take action of make an indication of taking action that negatively affects other people. If someone has a selfish view of playing their video games by themselves, then it's not undesirable unless they take a similar view towards something else, or if they actively force others to cheat.

Trying to compare cathartic release to the way one chooses to repurpose art to fit their own personal preferences makes no sense. Violent behaviour in a game is not indicative of a violent attitude because it is completely compartmentalised within the game itself and thus doesn't deserve treatment any different to engaging with other media with violence in it. Cheating is on a different level, it is not an interaction within the game, it is an interaction WITH the game as an object. Cheating is not a mode of playing.

Cheating is a mode of playing, people play games that they cheat. It's just a mode created by the user. Violent behavior in a game is a result of an interaction with the game as an object. In fact, these games are objects, and the only way we can interact with them is because they're objects. If cheating is selfishness because you're interacting with the game as an object, then how is playing the game not selfish because you're interacting with the game as an object? You're interacting with both to play it in the first place.

Why can't people cheat for cathartic release anyway? You said cheating is self-harm in one sense, but if someone cheats for that purpose, then is it really self-harm in another sense?

If the term "cheating" carries with it such negative connotations and is enough acknowledgement of a fault, then why are so many so permissive about it in SP scenarios? In reality, if it actually carried any of that weight, more would oppose it. Permissiveness of undesirable behaviours normalises them.

You said you want something to acknowledge it, then that's as close as you're gonna get. I don't care about cheating in video games a lot, other people do, and other people avoid it because of the implications of the word "cheating." I'm sure more people personally object to cheating, but they don't care when other people do it; read the entire thread (and even things I have said personally) to verify it. It's trivial when it does happen, and it also doesn't happen often.

The difference is that I view video game cheating as very harmless behavior and I don't believe cheating in video games leads to selfish behavior, just as I don't view driving on the sidewalks in GTA to violent behavior. The arguments behind those are quite similar, because you want cheating in video games discouraged because it leads to behavior that you find morally unappealing.

Yes, people's preferences are subjective, but preferences are not evidence of such value being neccessarily subjective. Percieved value =/= actual value.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/value

Definition #1. The other definitions are monetary in nature. There is a societal definition, but again that ends up being a feeling an entire society has towards something, and in this thread people don't care much about cheating in a single player game.

I'm advocating against the action of cheating in videogames, but asserting that I wholeheartedly support the freedom that enables them to do so. We must be allowed to make decisions like these.

I geninuely believe it is bad to cheat. I probably sound more haughty than intended regarding it though, because even at it's most eregious, it is a relatively trivial thing. Yet, I don't think the relative trivial nature of it excuses it.

This argument seems like more about how it's thought-crime with to consider single player cheating under certain (arbitrary) circumstances, but that's probably more to do with how vehemently you come across in defiance of cheating.

I don't understand your second point about the "nuts and bolts of the broader logic".

"Why personal autonomy is not a good excuse to cheat" is a statement that is thrown around a lot, but also not entirely structurally sound. That's what I'm getting for your posts. Your argument is comparing it to self-harm to do away with the argument. This entire debate is more or less about "is cheating in video games about self-harm" but with conflating cheating with selfishness.

[Irysa]

How is what I said related to advocating for people being philistines? You can't just throw out a word and have it be vaguely related, and not only that but you can't just throw out a label, and associate it with my viewpoint to make it come off as bad. In no way did I advocate for being philistines, because cheating in a video game is not always a result of that kind of thing.

Furthermore, if that's my assertion (that x can never be inherently more valuable than y in art) then how is throwing out a broad label to me even relevant? It's a very broad label, clearly used to bring down my point instead of actually counter it. To you it appears that being a philistine with someone who believes in subjectivity as well, whereas the dictionary definition is much more specific and what I was referring to:

Having that said, not everyone's going to "understand" art the way other people do, and again this is all assuming video game is purely an artform, which is where this word becomes completely relevant, which it is not.

You're trivialising an artform or decrying it as something that is fundamentally simply about catering to people's desires as a service or toy. You seem to claim any artistry is simply a secondary feature at best and isn't very notable. I think comparing it to philistinism is pretty appropriate.

Selfishness isn't an inherently negative reaction to someone else. Bigotry is. I would much rather people be selfish than bigoted, as would most people. However, this is also along the lines of associating cheating with selfishness, because cheating is about as selfish as playing any single-player game is selfish; it's such a broad use of the word that it seems almost meaningless to make it negative label. The majority of people play single-player video games for what amounts to selfish reasons; whether it be because they want to feel an experience for themselve, escape from real life, kill time, or be entertained.

I am actually personally fine with someone internalising their hatred, because everyone has their biases, because everyone has hatred internalized. This is probably where our values differ; I don't care about what is going through their heads until they take action of make an indication of taking action that negatively affects other people. If someone has a selfish view of playing their video games by themselves, then it's not undesirable unless they take a similar view towards something else, or if they actively force others to cheat.

I agree that I would rather people be selfish than bigoted in general, but I still think both are undesirable. I am not accusing people who want to play games to have fun of being neccessarily selfish (desiring to be happy and engaged with something is not wrong), merely that if you willfully cheat to make the game more enjoyable for yourself then you are reinforcing selfishness because that motivation has overtaken other concerns.

I agree that many people have internalised hatred and it is basically impossible to expect everyone to get rid of it. However, we must neccessarily view the attitude as undesirable. Shrugging our shoulders and saying "oh well, can't get rid of it" is lazy at best and dangerous at worst. You don't have to self-flagellate or go to a confessional but you should be aware of your own biases and understand how they are negative, else you are more likely to lapse in your conduct.

Cheating is a mode of playing, people play games that they cheat. It's just a mode created by the user. Violent behavior in a game is a result of an interaction with the game as an object. In fact, these games are objects, and the only way we can interact with them is because they're objects. If cheating is selfishness because you're interacting with the game as an object, then how is playing the game not selfish because you're interacting with the game as an object? You're interacting with both to play it in the first place.

Why can't people cheat for cathartic release anyway? You said cheating is self-harm in one sense, but if someone cheats for that purpose, then is it really self-harm in another sense?

Cheating is not a mode of playing because to cheat you are engaging with the game on a level that is seperate from playing it. If you are inputting codes into some action-replay esque thing, fucking around with files, using emulator savestates, etc, these are all things that are not within the game, they're external. If you are violent in a game, you are violent within the game's confines and constraints, and the game is a creative work.

I think you misunderstood the second point, it's not because you interact with it as an object that it is selfish behaviour, it is because you interact with it to cheat that it is. Objects can be interacted with in different ways. To move a game to a different location on your harddrive would be interacting with it as an object, but I see no real negative assocations with this inherantly.

I think people can cheat for cathartic release, and rather than cheating being bad (because I think playing with hacks or reinterpreting/remixing a work is fine), perhaps I should clarify; if you refuse to play without cheats for reasons involving your own satisfaction, this is a problem. I suggest a first playthrough because it is the experience where you are most blind and things are likely to have more of an impact on you, but I also accept that then comitting to play it again without cheats is at least a form of repentance. I would think it undesirable though, and it would not excuse an attitude of "I'll beat it with cheats first then beat it legit" as a starting point, because now you're willingly messing with the first playthrough when you could very well just do it the other way around.

You said you want something to acknowledge it, then that's as close as you're gonna get. I don't care about cheating in video games a lot, other people do, and other people avoid it because of the implications of the word "cheating." I'm sure more people personally object to cheating, but they don't care when other people do it; read the entire thread (and even things I have said personally) to verify it. It's trivial when it does happen, and it also doesn't happen often.

The difference is that I view video game cheating as very harmless behavior and I don't believe cheating in video games leads to selfish behavior, just as I don't view driving on the sidewalks in GTA to violent behavior. The arguments behind those are quite similar, because you want cheating in video games discouraged because it leads to behavior that you find morally unappealing.

I didn't say it leads to selfish behaviour. Merely that it reinforces insular/selfish attitudes. Once again, I agree it is slight, I just have more of a deontological view about this thing, in that we need to view actions as good or bad. Heck, let's take Kant's categorical imperative;

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.

Would you consider it desirable, undesirable, or irrelevant if literally everyone cheated in videogames? I think this would be a bad thing.

Definition #1. The other definitions are monetary in nature. There is a societal definition, but again that ends up being a feeling an entire society has towards something, and in this thread people don't care much about cheating in a single player game.

The mathematical definition is what I am using essentially, because from my PoV I'm simply claiming that 2 is greater than 1, whilst you are claiming it's all relative.

This argument seems like more about how it's thought-crime with to consider single player cheating under certain (arbitrary) circumstances, but that's probably more to do with how vehemently you come across in defiance of cheating.

It is not a thought-crime, because I would never want anyone prosecuted or harmed for such a trivial action. I do think they shouldn't do it, but it is not a crime.

"Why personal autonomy is not a good excuse to cheat" is a statement that is thrown around a lot, but also not entirely structurally sound. That's what I'm getting for your posts. Your argument is comparing it to self-harm to do away with the argument. This entire debate is more or less about "is cheating in video games about self-harm" but with conflating cheating with selfishness.

What is unstructurally sound about the point?

Edited October 25, 2016 by Irysa

[Lord Raven]

You're trivialising an artform or decrying it as something that is fundamentally simply about catering to people's desires as a service or toy. You seem to claim any artistry is simply a secondary feature at best and isn't very notable. I think comparing it to philistinism is pretty appropriate.

What's the issue with this? It's a unique enough medium that you can't pinpoint it to one thing. It's not art, entertainment, or a toy before any of the other three. As it stands, if they take away one artistic quality in the gameplay and keep in the rest, what's the problem? I'm merely stating that everyone gets something different out of video games, and them not appreciating it in the same way you do doesn't make them a philistine or make me encouraging them to be one. It makes the person accusing someone else of being a philistine a prude.

I agree that I would rather people be selfish than bigoted in general, but I still think both are undesirable. I am not accusing people who want to play games to have fun of being neccessarily selfish (desiring to be happy and engaged with something is not wrong), merely that if you willfully cheat to make the game more enjoyable for yourself then you are reinforcing selfishness because that motivation has overtaken other concerns.

But you are calling gamers selfish, because the majority of people don't play games for non-selfish reasons. Actually;

(desiring to be happy and engaged with something is not wrong)

People are happy and engaged with things that are negative, too. Are you saying cheating is wrong even though the reason people cheat is not? Because this contradicts your view against how personal autonomy is a poor argument - people find different things fun and engaging, and there's nothing wrong with them choosing how they wish to express it.

I agree that many people have internalised hatred and it is basically impossible to expect everyone to get rid of it. However, we must neccessarily view the attitude as undesirable. Shrugging our shoulders and saying "oh well, can't get rid of it" is lazy at best and dangerous at worst. You don't have to self-flagellate or go to a confessional but you should be aware of your own biases and understand how they are negative, else you are more likely to lapse in your conduct.

Okay, but if someone is selfish with how they mod their video games, do you seriously expect people to express this in other ways?

Cheating is not a mode of playing because to cheat you are engaging with the game on a level that is seperate from playing it. If you are inputting codes into some action-replay esque thing, fucking around with files, using emulator savestates, etc, these are all things that are not within the game, they're external. If you are violent in a game, you are violent within the game's confines and constraints, and the game is a creative work.

Okay, but you are still violent in a game, and are still expressing a violent urge.

Those things you mentioned are also within the medium that the game is being played on, also, so you are still playing the game.

I didn't say it leads to selfish behaviour. Merely that it reinforces insular/selfish attitudes. Once again, I agree it is slight, I just have more of a deontological view about this thing, in that we need to view actions as good or bad. Heck, let's take Kant's categorical imperative;

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.

Would you consider it desirable, undesirable, or irrelevant if literally everyone cheated in videogames? I think this would be a bad thing.

No, because everyone's being entertained in their own way. So long as it doesn't spread to everything else (there is no proof that cheaters are generally selfish people) then I have zero problem with it, even if everyone did it.

The mathematical definition is what I am using essentially, because from my PoV I'm simply claiming that 2 is greater than 1, whilst you are claiming it's all relative.

Values are assigned to numbers and variables. Not objects. The mathematical definition doesn't apply when it comes to moral values, because that's covered under another definition that doesn't justify math.

What is unstructurally sound about the point?

I'm saying that your argument is that "personal autonomy is not a good excuse to cheat", because you can't just label personal autonomy as a reason for anything. I'm saying that "personal autonomy" is a structurally unsound argument, which appears to be where we agree.

I didn't say anything else, I was just clarifying what I meant.

[Irysa]

What's the issue with this? It's a unique enough medium that you can't pinpoint it to one thing. It's not art, entertainment, or a toy before any of the other three. As it stands, if they take away one artistic quality in the gameplay and keep in the rest, what's the problem? I'm merely stating that everyone gets something different out of video games, and them not appreciating it in the same way you do doesn't make them a philistine or make me encouraging them to be one. It makes the person accusing someone else of being a philistine a prude.

I am not claiming you can universally pinpoint it to one thing, but I also think that art is generally more important than toys or entertainment services. So naturally, it is always more important unless it is clear the game is blatantly decrying its status as anything but those things. I am not claiming that anyone not appreciating it in the way I do is a philistine so much as anyone who trivialises art in general is a philistine. I think the label of prude would imply I'm excessively concerned with these matters, which I'm not; I'm merely posting in a thread expressing my views and trying to clarify them. I am not going to go out of my way to stop people cheating, and I do not suffer from any anxiety about the fact it occurs. I'm merely explaining why I think it is undesirable.

You could try label me an elitist perhaps, but I don't think wishing other people would be less self-centred is particularly elitist either.

But you are calling gamers selfish, because the majority of people don't play games for non-selfish reasons. Actually;

People are happy and engaged with things that are negative, too. Are you saying cheating is wrong even though the reason people cheat is not? Because this contradicts your view against how personal autonomy is a poor argument - people find different things fun and engaging, and there's nothing wrong with them choosing how they wish to express it.

I am not saying they are selfish as in "selfishness is a pervasive attitude amongst these people". I am saying they are engaging in a selfish behaviour. This does not equate to being selfish on a broader scale, only on a smaller one. Someone can behave in a rude manner selectively without being described as a rude person.

The desire to be happy is not wrong. The means by which you go about achieving happiness can be wrong. There are things that you should not do to further your happiness. I do not see how this contradicts my point.

Okay, but if someone is selfish with how they mod their video games, do you seriously expect people to express this in other ways?

Rather than expect, I acknowledge the fact it could contribute to the possibility.

Okay, but you are still violent in a game, and are still expressing a violent urge.

Those things you mentioned are also within the medium that the game is being played on, also, so you are still playing the game.

You are expressing a violent urge in the context of the game, and it is part of the creative choice of the developers to enable people to choose to be violent in their work. You are not actually comitting any acts of violence by being violent in a game, wheras you are comitting a selfish act if you externally cheat. Or rather, the action in the game can be at best described as representing violence, rather than the act itself being violent. The same would go for any other negative behaviours one can engage within a game's context. I do not see how this is comparable.

Cheating is not within the medium of the game itself. I would think that anyone can acknowledge that intuitively, modifying game files or using external code inserters/modifiers is not playing the game, it is an action that is connected to the game rather than being within it. To label that the same as playing it is a gross misuse of the verb.

No, because everyone's being entertained in their own way. So long as it doesn't spread to everything else (there is no proof that cheaters are generally selfish people) then I have zero problem with it, even if everyone did it.

Then there is not very much point in continuing this discussion at all I think. I think that such behaviour is undesirable on a mass scale, so it would be undesirable on a small scale, similar to book burning.

Values are assigned to numbers and variables. Not objects. The mathematical definition doesn't apply when it comes to moral values, because that's covered under another definition that doesn't justify math.

You yourself earlier acknowledged objective value as existing when discussing sentient intelligent life. To me this is comparable to math because it is of larger value than other things. If you are trying to say that the moral value of a life is of an entirely different sort of value that would be applied to objects, then again, this leaves us at an impasse. It is not a terribly uncommon view in philosophy to argue about objective value in a fairly unifying sense. I think art has the same sort of value as a life does (although less, obviously).

Edited October 26, 2016 by Irysa

[Skynstein]

I don't think you can really compare gaming to art, because the gamer has a far more active role.

The "realm of the game" is a dubious concept. I adopt a very restrictive use of the expression because its meaning is really only what the creator has intended. Therefore I rule out glitches and unorthodox strategies reliant on exploits because these are mostly found through continuous experimentation and may elude the clutches of the developers upon testing. Nintendo did not intend for you to beat Super Mario 64 with 0 stars. It's there, but even though it's contained within the confines of the game, it cannot be considered the "realm of the game" because it's simply not the intended way.

But this is exactly what's wonderful about gaming. Because it's an interactive medium, you can expand the experience beyond its "realm". And I don't speak only of computer gaming either. Rules in sports and board gaming can be exploited to the player's benefit and new rules are created to either support or prohibit such actions, making the game evolve.

Cheating can be either internal or external. If a game provides its own cheats (most of which were originally developer's tools), why not use them to further the experience? Even though they're internal, they do not belong to the "realm of the game", as you are not originally intended to use them to beat it, but their use can support the creation of new strategies and game modes. External cheats, on the other hand, are generally frowned upon because you're really tampering with the game, but I believe that they could still be useful for testing and finding out new strategies which can then be used within the confines of the "realm".

Cheating will only lead to a loss if you care deeply and in a borderline paranoid way about the legitimacy of the game. Otherwise, cheaters would simply not care. It's only a loss to them when they feel it.

[Tuvy]

Single player or observed cheating is fine, multiplayer no, exploits... :

[Tuvy]

Single player or observed cheating is fine, multiplayer no, exploits... :

[Loki Laufeyson]

my view on video game cheating:

its video games, who cares

pretty much. If people care THAT much about what others do with their single-player game, they really need to go outside. Multiplayer cheating is lame but i ultimately dont give too much of a shit.