A completely unbiased rebuttal to cheating.

[InCognito]

Recent topic have saddened me. There's no fight in any legits anymore. Since immature people mistake truth as flaming, it is necessary to point out their flaws in a more mature, logical manner. With that I begin this dissertation on the actual moral wrongdoings of cheating. And how the "it's just a game" the "get a life" the "just play in locked game" and the "ST doesn't care" arguments are all faulty in nature.

Read with an open mind. This is not a personal attack on cheating. I am merely trying to help cheaters see the error in their ways, and hopefully the mature, logical cheaters will change because THEY WANT TO. NOT because we want them to.
-----------------------------------------------

Throughout this essay I will be using information from http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger/kohlberg.html for my arguments. Feel free to refer to the site. Know that this model of moral development is the scientific standard, and that it can be applied and assessed to nearly every human being. Know that there are "transitional" periods where a particular person may not fit into a certain category.

Ok. Online cheating. This can be summed up as one of several things:
1. Giving yourself an unfair advantage over other players through the use of glitch exploitation and/or cheating devices.
2. Causing harm to others using the above devices.
3. Outright hacking and alteration of game code. Reverse engineering (which is also a crime).
------------------------------

There is ONE and only one excuse for cheating: ignorance. Once the cheater is aware that they are, in fact, cheating, they have become responsible for their actions. Now, to begin the rebuttal of common arguments:

1. "It's just a game." Any human being could look at anything else another human being does in his spare time and say "oh, that's just a X." By downplaying the importance of the hobby in his own mind, the oppressor has given himself the right to harm or take away the other person's enjoyment.

If I had a brother who enjoys creating computer generated images using software applications, but I think it is stupid, does that give me the right to erase his work? No. Does a computer generated image made simply for leisure have any more impact on the world than an online game? No. Then why is it OK to ruin an online game for another person? Is it because you cannot actually see the person and therefore hold no guilt? I must refer to Kohlberg for advice on this point. Here are his stages of moral development, worded for easy reading. The higher the stage, the higher the development.

Stage 1. The person's actions are based only on obedience and punishment.
Stage 2. Right behavior is only in the best interests of me.
Stage 3. Doing things for the approval of others.
Stage 4. Abiding by law and sense of duty (only 15% of all people make it past stage 4)
Stage 5. Genuine interest in the welfare of others.
Stage 6. Doing things simply for personal integrity.

A person who cheats online because he thinks "its only a game" and that his actions only matter to him is likely stuck between level 2 and 3. A person of average moral development would be approximately elementary school age at this stage. Since the model is the scientific standard, it can be assumed that individuals that cheat for these reasons are somewhat morally underdeveloped (assuming that not many elementary school kids play PSO, God I hope not).

Unfortunately, anyone who is at that level probably just got angry at what I said, and stopped reading. So for you mature people that have continued on with me .......

2. "Get a Life" Here I must refer to political theorist Mill's "harm principle" which states, in a nutshell:

"Society/government has no place in telling what is right or wrong for an individual person IF their actions cause no harm to others."

That essentially means that telling someone to "get a life" is implying that you know better than they do how they should spend their time, when you in fact do not. You are veering into the realm of illogical assumptions, and have therefore nullified your own argument by entering into a social engagement with a bias. Meaning: JUST BECAUSE THE GAME ISN?T THAT IMPORTANT TO YOU DOESN'T MEAN IT?S NOT IMPORTANT TO OTHER PEOPLE. And since the harm principle states that your actions should not cause harm to others, and you're harming something they enjoy (no matter how stupid you think it is), you're doing something wrong, and should stop.

3. "Just play in locked games" Using the presumptions of the previous argument, this one is quite easy to refute. Since the original contract ST placed upon us is supposed to stop cheating, legit players are SUPPOSED to have the right to go anywhere and trade with anyone. I know, ST doesn't care, blah blah. I'll refute that too in a moment, so bear with me. So in violation of the harm principle, when you cheat, you are preventing others from enjoying the game the way they were supposed to. Assuming the previous arguments are true, this is wrong. Telling someone to play in locked games is therefore NOT a viable solution.

4. "ST doesn't care". My man Kohlberg really takes the sledgehammer to this argument. This is akin to a society where the majority of the people run amuck if no laws are enforced. They do so simply because they are only thinking of their personal interests. In Kohlberg's terms, they are stuck at level 4, which only 15% of all individuals get past. You may try to rebut that saying "it's natural for people to be chaotic" or some nonsense. However, these stages of moral development have been scientifically proven, and are therefore the path that we human beings are SUPPOSED to embark on. Denying ourselves that is to become more animal than human.

In simpler terms, cheating in an online game because the rules are not enforced implies that one is stuck on stage four, only caring about themselves. People who are faced with such accusations use the "it's just a game" or "get a life" arguments to try to get out of it. Sadly for them, those have been refuted as well. That leaves them no outlet other than admitting to being morally underdeveloped. Since moral development is a natural course of human existence (all human beings have an innate sense of right and wrong), it can be concluded that cheaters are not living to their entire potential as humans. They are denying themselves the beneficial growth of moral and social development by only caring for themselves.

With that I will end. I encourage you to read the website I posted earlier and contemplate Kohlberg's stages. Find where you are and work at it. Only good can come of it.

Have a wonderful day. I'm spent.

Edit: I typed this up in MS Word. A lot of punctuation (quotation marks and apostrophes appear as question marks for some reason, sorry about that >_< )

Edit 2: Fixed what I saw.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: InCognito on 2004-02-02 23:18 ]</font>


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: InCognito on 2004-02-02 23:24 ]</font>

[soulja2244]

ADE?

WTF man, I can't believe you wrote all that over something so trivial.

[InCognito]

"WTF man, I can't believe you wrote all that over something so trivial."
-----------------------

LoL. That in itself is a violation of the harm principle AND the "get a life" argument.

ADE's IP is banned. ADE also would not have written a calm dissertation. Go read IGN, he hasn't logged on to PSO for like two weeks.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: InCognito on 2004-02-02 23:29 ]</font>

[VioletSkye]

You're entire dissertation hinges on the belief that we all have equal moral standings and that those morals and actions can be categorically amassed into some type of neat and tidy little box. But thats not reality.

[InCognito]

When these stages are applied to reality, they work CONSISTENTLY. You should try advancing your moral development instead of arguing back at the person who is trying to help.

[VioletSkye]

On 2004-02-02 23:38, InCognito wrote:
When these stages are applied to reality, they work CONSISTENTLY. You should try advancing your moral development instead of arguing back at the person who is trying to help.

I have no interest in advancing my moral development. And the stages when applied to "reality" are not consistent. You apparently know very little about criminal psychology.


Maybe you missed the "consistent" use of the word "generally" in pertaining to the moral thinking. That in and of itself is flawed thinking. Yes we as humans have a similiar range of feelings and emotions, but the processing of said emotions varies "consistently" from person to person.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: VioletSkye on 2004-02-02 23:47 ]</font>

[InCognito]

Actually I do. And criminals are usually stuck on the early stages of the development cycle. Also, note how I said this applies to MOST people. "Most" meaning people who are in full possession of their mental factulies. Most psychotic criminals are not.

[VioletSkye]

On 2004-02-02 23:46, InCognito wrote:
Actually I do. And criminals are usually stuck on the early stages of the development cycle. Also, note how I said this applies to MOST people. "Most" meaning people who are in full possession of their mental factulies. Most psychotic criminals are not.

Not true. They are often times able to survive very well in society behind a veil of normalcy, known as the chameleon effect. Anyway, this strays from my point that we each process things in our own way. I have never believed in the box theory. meaning that every action, emotion and response can be easily labled and filed.

This is after all a "theory" and many, many doctors have developed many, many theories over the centuries. Mental Health sciences are only as accurate as the current information we have and oft times popular consensus.

BTW reverse engineering is NOT a crime.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: VioletSkye on 2004-02-02 23:53 ]</font>

[InCognito]

Not true. They are often times able to survive very well in society behind a veil of normalcy, known as the chameleon effect. Anyway, this strays from my point that we each process things in our own way. I have never believed in the box theory. meaning that every action, emotion and response can be easily labled and filed.

The chameleon effect itself supports the development theory! A person who can mask their true personality IS in possession of their mental faculties, and is likely not psychotic. However, they are only on development level 2-3 because they only act like a good person when it is beneficial for them to do so.

I think you're equating moral development to intellectual development. It doesn't always work that way. The person you just described is likey a VERY INTELLIGENT person, but is extremely morally underdeveloped.

I know non-science people hate to hear this: but with enough effort and thought, EVERYTHING can be classified and filed

[VioletSkye]

On 2004-02-02 23:53, InCognito wrote:

Not true. They are often times able to survive very well in society behind a veil of normalcy, known as the chameleon effect. Anyway, this strays from my point that we each process things in our own way. I have never believed in the box theory. meaning that every action, emotion and response can be easily labled and filed.

The chameleon effect itself supports the development theory! A person who can mask their true personality IS in possession of their mental faculties, and is likely not psychotic. However, they are only on development level 2-3 because they only act like a good person when it is beneficial for them to do so.

I think you're equating moral development to intellectual development. It doesn't always work that way. The person you just described is likey a VERY INTELLIGENT person, but is extremely morally underdeveloped.

I know non-science people hate to hear this: but with enough effort and thought, EVERYTHING can be classified and filed

Morals in and of themselves are relative. Do you think that suicide bombers are morally arrested because they are doing something they feel is justified? And for that matter, take a look at the immense cultural differences in regards to morality, religion, human rights etc. Your idea of morality and Kohlberg's idea of morality mean very little when applied across the entire gamut of humanity.

BTW I do not subscribe to the theory that everything can be filed and classified, nor should it be. Science is a wonderful thing, but again as I already stated its only as accurate as the current info (meaning it is constantly subject to change which in essense belies its inaccuracy.)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: VioletSkye on 2004-02-03 00:02 ]</font>