A completely unbiased rebuttal to cheating.

[InCognito]

No, it's because destorying someone's stuff and cheating in a videogame are two totally different things.

No, they aren't. The entire point of the essay was to show how they are the same thing in principle.

Just because actual destruction of the game data is not taking place does not mean the legit gamer's experience of PSO isn't being tarnished. I fail to see how that can be disputed.

Not only are you assuming that all people have the same moral standards as you do, but also forget that everyone does what they think is right 95% of the time, but what person A thinks is right and what person B thinks is right can be two totally different things.

I never said that people can't have differing morals. However, this chart imples that certain inalieable rights must be present for ANY form of debate or progress to be made. This chart is simply an assessment of the humanitarian/psychological development of countless individuals, effectively applied to nearly any situation involving sane persons.

On Gamecube and Xbox, cheaters didn?t affect me one bit. I?m serious. As long as I was still able to get EXP, they could do whatever they wanted in my games.

I'm sorry but that isn't what we're discussing. We're discussing how cheaters stack up against a scientifically proven model for moral development, NOT your past experiences of PSO. Plus I don't see how that has any relevance to my argument being crap. If anything, it supports it.

In conclusion, I don?t see how people can get so worked up over a videogame, which to me is sadder than getting all worked up about what people say to you on the internet, but I also don?t see why people would pay money just to use a messageboard so that might be it.

Yet another violation of the harm principle and the "get a life" argument. You're stating that what we do is stupid because YOU THINK it is. It may be to you, but please leave your angered opinions out of my topics if you wish to contribute nothing.

Thank you for evading my points.

There. Got it done. Anyone else?



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: InCognito on 2004-02-03 04:41 ]</font>

[Ness]

On 2004-02-03 04:39, InCognito wrote:

No, they aren't. The entire point of the essay was to show how they are the same thing in principle.

Just because actual destruction of the game data is not taking place does not mean the legit gamer's experience of PSO isn't being tarnished. I fail to see how that can be disputed.

I was legit, but cheaters didn't tarnish my gaming experience so obviously it can be disputed. It seems to me that you can't accept the fact that not all legits think the way you do. ADE had that problem as well.

I never said that people can't have differing morals. However, this chart imples that certain inalieable rights must be present for ANY form of debate or progress to be made. This chart is simply an assessment of the humanitarian/psychological development of countless individuals, effectively applied to nearly any situation involving sane persons.

I didn't see any unalienable rights, I saw you trying to classify ther levels of morality, which is impossible.

I'm sorry but that isn't what we're discussing. We're discussing how cheaters stack up against a scientifically proven model for moral development, NOT your past experiences of PSO. Plus I don't see how that has any relevance to my argument being crap. If anything, it supports it.

Well it did have some significance, but it you missed it the second time then saying it again won't do you any good. Here you go talking about how your little chart is "scientifically proven" all I see is someone opinion about morality, and when it's opinion it's not science, it's philosophy.

Yet another violation of the harm principle and the "get a life" argument. You're stating that what we do is stupid because YOU THINK it is. It may be to you, but please leave your angered opinions out of my topics if you wish to contribute nothing.

I'm being told to "leave my angered opinions out of [this] topic" by a person who is on soapbox preaching about how he is morally superior to chaeters. I find that funny.

[Superguppie]

On 2004-02-03 04:13, Ness wrote:
I stopped after I read number one because quite frankly, that was the saddest thing I had ever read.

Then you probably didn't understand. It isn't anymore sad than cheaters that simply can't seem to understand the harm they are doing.

I think you need to get a life because it is just a game and realize that cheating in a game has nothing to do with morals.

Read my reply: I have a life, and in that life the difference between in game and IRL with respect to respecting others and myself does not exist. Cheating ALWAYS has to do with morals. Especialy when others are involved. Morals have to do with how you behave towards others. And cheating is bad behavior towards others.

Although you claim to be different from ADE, you are just as bad as he is.

Not quite. ADE usualy started with flames and often didn't even bother arguing. InCognito seems to bother arguing a lot and even have a passion for it.
Gee, I wonder what the difference is?

First of all, you whole moral level chart is complete crap.

So your uneducated view of life is less crappy than the work of someone that has made his lifes work of studying his (or her, dunno) fellow human beings?
Now who needs a life here?
As I said, I don't know the credibility of the publication. But I don't call it crap just because it says something I don't like. If you think it is wrong, back it up with credible people from the same field of expertise saying so. You're word means nothing until you can do that.

Not only are you assuming that all people have the same moral standards as you do, but also forget that everyone does what they think is right 95% of the time, but what person A thinks is right and what person B thinks is right can be two totally different things.

I say the same with respect to the classification of the religious misbehavers. However, it's InCognito's moral standards that are in question here, the publication is not. The publication is not about what the moral standards are, but about how people relate to them.
(With the possible exception for stage 6. But that one is kinda fuzzy)

The analogy you made was pretty faulty as well. First of all, there is a difference between playing a game differently than you are and destroying your stuff. The analogy you made implied that cheaters are going around deleting you files, which is not true. Also how does a cheater ruin an online game for you? Is it simply because they cheat, or is it because you can?t flaunt your rares like you would want to?

I had expected better of you. You have had a chance to read the other topics on this issue. But in case you had forgotten:
- Cheating has totaly screwed over the trade system. I have to explicitly ask for legit stuff (Word Select doesn't have a word for it, as illegit isn't supposed to even exist...) I have to explain myself time and again. And after I have asked and explained I am confronted by people that offer a hacked thing and claim they know the guy who found it.
- Cheating has made ST feel it necessary to put in the dreaded double save.
- ST is known to have not released items because of the high proliferation of the hacked versions of those items. This way a legit player is denied the opportunity to obtain such items.
- I get called names by cheaters for being legit. I get called names by legits because I have some legit rare stuff of which others have hacked versions.

I won't mention EXP hogging as an effect of cheating. Strictly speaking you could legitly do that, although it's not very useful. That is just assholish behavior. That can be observed on both cheaters and legits.

I?ve been playing since DC ver1 and I can say with straight face that the only cheaters that affected me were malignant PK?ers (when I say malignant, I?m talking about the people who PK to steal you stuff) and they only came around once in a blue moon....On Gamecube and Xbox, cheaters didn?t affect me one bit.

You have also been affected by the other cheats. But you probably liked the effects, so you don't mention them. I don't like these effects, so I do mention them.

In fact, I saw legits being assholes to cheaters more than cheaters being assholes to legits.

The objections to cheating is not the assholish behavior displayed by some. As you say legits are often better (or should I say worse) at it. I can understand the emotions of the legit assholes. But I don't undersand why they go about it the way they do. They're a pain that I wish would go away.
The objection to cheating is the side-effects mentioned above. Using cheats that cause things like that is very inconsiderate of the cheaters. <sarcasm>But of course, what can one expect from the lower stages.</sarcasm>

Most of the cheaters I?ve met were pretty nice and understanding people, which is more than I can say about most legits I?ve met. Many of the legits I?ve met had the same ?I?m morally superior to you? elitism that your showing, but to a lesser degree.

I also know and play with cheaters. And most of them have the decency to keep the worst of the effects away from me. But that doesn't change the fact that cheating is a sign of disrespect, even when it's not conciously done out of disrespect. Someone can be excused for cheating when not knowing the arguments against it. But once these are known, the disrespect thing is known, and cheating is immoral. Cheaters that are aware of the disrespect are in a lower stage than me.
Call that elitism. Yes, it is. But it has always been the elite that makes progression. I'll be more than happy to be part of that elite.

In conclusion, I don?t see how people can get so worked up over a videogame, which to me is sadder than getting all worked up about what people say to you on the internet, but I also don?t see why people would pay money just to use a messageboard so that might be it.

Getting worked up over the game is for one simple reason: Fun is a necessity. If the fun is ruined, expect the emotions that are let out in the game to be directed at you.
And expect debates like this one...

PS: I started writing this before the posts between the one I responded to and this one. Nothing much to add though...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Superguppie on 2004-02-03 05:35 ]</font>

[ILLI]

Ok.. so I see we have some Learned people on psoworld that want to talk about development.

First off.. Because an individual shows they are not in a higher level of moral development in a certain area, it doesn't mean this is throughout their whole life.. Someone could exhibit the highest level of cognitive and moral development pertaining to aspects of thier lives while showing the complete opposite at others.. I believe you feel that if someone shows one area or sign of low moral development it puts them in the classification of low moral development... This is false..

Ok now lets take moral development on this game.. One of the big difference between this game and real life is their is no punishment or negative effect to what you have called "a sign of low moral development".. In real life there are negative consequences to your actions.. When people ignore these consequences and continue to involve themselves in activities that exhibit low moral development, they are punished.. Its not like that in pso.. You can do whatever you want when you want and not expect negative consequences... Because of this reason (not having negative effects or punishment for cheating) this game does not apply to Kohlberg's reasoning or moral development..

All be it.. there may be people on this game that do have low moral reasoning on this game... But honestly you would not be able to know fully till you saw their actions outside of pso.. Pso is a different world.. A world where you can do whatever you want without negative consequences..For Kohlbergs argument to hold true on pso there would have to be some form of punishment on pso.. Right now the only punishment cheaters get is the moral reasoning conversations from legits on psoworld (lol)..

This is a topic that I find very intresting and one which people could write papers on.. (A normal functioning moral reasoner in real life vs. online) The online has brought about many changes in our lives and this is one of them... The internet and online gaming is a open bar for many things that You wouldn't involve yourself in In real life..

The one thing your Kohlberg argument is lacking is the topic of punishment.. There has to be some reward system or punishment talk when dealing with Kohlberg's theory.. Unfortunatly the cheaters have the upper hand in the fact that there is no punishment for cheating on this game.. This makes even the most morally developed person sway on being legit.. When there is no consequences for your actions, then people tend to explore something not in their nature..

Someone also mentioned that you can't fit everyone into a category.. this is very true.. There are people that argue for and against every theory.. People all develop at different rates.. Someone at age 3 could be further advanced in development then someone at age 4.. it happens and is normal..

you have to remember that applying theories about development and moral reasoning to Online gaming is very hard.. The theories these theorists have came up with were not made with Online gaming in mind... They can not be applied to an online game in my opinion..

[AppieDPC]

First of all I would like to say it was a good read InCognito. However leave out the unbiased, you are clearly biased (not that I mind, to each his own).

Some nice points Violetskye, it is indeed a theory on something that is very hard (if not impossible) to put in a "box": human beings.

Anyway that theory (which is nothing more than that):

I find point 4 very, very interesting

Stage 4. Abiding by law and sense of duty (only 15% of all people make it past stage 4)

Only 15% reach this stage? So in other words 15% of the PSO users would be legit? And 85% cheats? Hmmm... could be accurate

I also found it very interesting to apply this theory to myself. Why? Because I play both ways

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.

So in my cheating ways I wouldn't get past stage 4(because I clearly don't respect the ToS), but with my legit chars I would? Think I just found the flaw in Kohlberg's theory or in other words the exception to Kohlberg's theory: a human being which can be classified in more than one/two box(es).
Even when I play online in (legit) games wether it is for trade or a normal game, I will always tell that the items are dupes or not and if somebody wants an item (dupe or not, the choice is up to the other player to accept it or not). It becomes his choise based on his morals. My morals stand for having my fun(so can't go beyond Stage 2 of the theory?), wether that is with cheating chars or legit chars, and in the process trying to reduce the harm my fun could do to others. So in some ways (other than the ToS) I get beyond stage 4 in my cheating ways. I will help anybody either in their cheating ways or legit ways to the extend that I can. Hmmm beyond Stage 4 now? Clearly showing interest in the welfare of others, wether it is with dupes or not is up to player who wants the items. Either way me giving them dupes or legit items extends their fun (both in an unique way).
And what they find more fun to play is up to them not me. Like I said in the beginning of this post: To each his own. I might not respect the ToS, but I do respect that.

Edit: just read ILLI's post
Amen brother!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AppieDPC on 2004-02-03 06:42 ]</font>

[InCognito]

Because of this reason (not having negative effects or punishment for cheating) this game does not apply to Kohlberg's reasoning or moral development..

Actually that's exactly what Kohlberg's theory states. If there is no punishment to be given, and that's the only reason they cheat, then they are stuck in stage one.

A person who only behaves when he is being watched but does things wrong (as in PSO) when he is not being monitored is on a low level of moral development. You have to look at your life and see what area in which you act the lowest, for that is the area you are in. If you're a great person in the real world, but cheat on PSO because there are no consequences, you're stuck on the first two stages. As much as I hate to say

[InCognito]

Another thought. You're going to come back and say that it's only a game and all that stuff, but remember: all that has been refuted with reason. So the fact of the matter is: if you're cheating and you're aware of it, you are causing undue harm to others. It doesn't really matter how good you are to everyone else outside of PSO, you have to be consistent in your behavior to reach the next stage.

However leave out the unbiased, you are clearly biased

I wasn't being biased at all. I simply took Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development and ran the actions I see on PSO through the Moral filter, and this is what panned out. I'm not trying to force anything on anyone here.

I'm just saying "this is exactly what this respective action on PSO means in Kohlberg's terms". I didn't impose or "get high and mighty" (like some other dude said). I just put a perspective on a well known action and am letting you decide.

If I seemed biased, perhaps you are reading into it too much. However I do think you'll find a lot of this essay quite irrefutable.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: InCognito on 2004-02-03 07:00 ]</font>

[AppieDPC]

You support Kohlberg's theory right?
And how the theory would work for PSO right?
And how this theory fully explains the way people think in PSO in your opinion while there are many, many other theories on human behavior. So yea, I think you are biased, that was all I meant.

Surely the theory has some good points. But the whole problem with the theory is that it is a theory. And that theory could hold most of the time, but that still isn't good enough.
Escpecially in the case of human beings: The biggest variable this world has ever produced.

[Superguppie]

On 2004-02-03 06:09, ILLI wrote:
First off.. Because an individual shows they are not in a higher level of moral development in a certain area, it doesn't mean this is throughout their whole life.. Someone could exhibit the highest level of cognitive and moral development pertaining to aspects of thier lives while showing the complete opposite at others.. I believe you feel that if someone shows one area or sign of low moral development it puts them in the classification of low moral development... This is false..

For me that feeling is correct. Suppose you're at stage 2. You act in your best self interest and getting punnished is something to be evaded. So, as long as the threat of punnishment is big enough you could easily act stage 4. However, in PSO the punnishment is off. A true stage 4 would read the ToS, say "I agree" and abide by it. The fact that the punnishment is off does not make it less of a law. Anyone breaking the ToS on PSO is below stage 4. Acting stage 4 IRL does not make one stage 4 IRL. In a sense PSO shows our true moral development.

Ok now lets take moral development on this game.. One of the big difference between this game and real life is their is no punishment or negative effect to what you have called "a sign of low moral development".. In real life there are negative consequences to your actions.. When people ignore these consequences and continue to involve themselves in activities that exhibit low moral development, they are punished.. Its not like that in pso.. You can do whatever you want when you want and not expect negative consequences... Because of this reason (not having negative effects or punishment for cheating) this game does not apply to Kohlberg's reasoning or moral development..

Yes it does. For stages 4 and up the enforcement of law is less relevant. The fact that something is a law suffices. If a law is wrong you don't break it, you have it changed. Misbehaving "because you can" means you are below stage 4.

All be it.. there may be people on this game that do have low moral reasoning on this game... But honestly you would not be able to know fully till you saw their actions outside of pso.. Pso is a different world.. A world where you can do whatever you want without negative consequences..For Kohlbergs argument to hold true on pso there would have to be some form of punishment on pso.. Right now the only punishment cheaters get is the moral reasoning conversations from legits on psoworld (lol)..

Sadly, that seems to be the only thing they get, and most don't consider it punnishment.
However, that doesn't mean the model doesn't hold. Punnishment is only a means to make clear what is good and what is bad. It stimulates development by making the consequences of bad behavior unpleasant, and therefore less desirable. Place a stage 1 in PSO and he/she will never reach stage 2. I think we don't have any stage 1s in PSO, although some do seem to behave like that. But most of the bad behavior can be expected up to stage 3.
The fact that PSO doesn't stimulate growth by providing punnishment does not mean the model doesn't hold for the players.
Also, anyone acting like a stage 4 IRL and misbehaving in PSO "because they can" is NOT stage 4.

This is a topic that I find very intresting and one which people could write papers on.. (A normal functioning moral reasoner in real life vs. online) The online has brought about many changes in our lives and this is one of them... The internet and online gaming is a open bar for many things that You wouldn't involve yourself in In real life..

Most certainly. Too bad I'm not studying psychology or philosopy. I might pick it up. Anyone around that does have an appropriate study and wants to pick it up? You'll have my support, for what it's worth.

The one thing your Kohlberg argument is lacking is the topic of punishment.. There has to be some reward system or punishment talk when dealing with Kohlberg's theory.. Unfortunatly the cheaters have the upper hand in the fact that there is no punishment for cheating on this game.. This makes even the most morally developed person sway on being legit.. When there is no consequences for your actions, then people tend to explore something not in their nature..

As said above, the lack of punnishment does not make the classification wrong. It only means there is no way to stop the lower stagers from misbehaving and stimulate growth.
Exploring without consequences is pointless. I have learned how to dupe out of curiosity. I duped a handgun to see what it was like and destroyed the guns afterwards. It only served to fill my curiosity, and I wouldn't dream of doing anything like that online. Mainly because of the potential consequences to others.
And that brings me to another point. Cheating does have consequences, as can be read in an earlier post. These consequences are mainly on the heads of others, that object to it. It's the good that suffer from the bad again. Very inconsiderate (and below 4) of the cheaters.

Someone also mentioned that you can't fit everyone into a category.. this is very true.. There are people that argue for and against every theory.. People all develop at different rates.. Someone at age 3 could be further advanced in development then someone at age 4.. it happens and is normal..

I feel the argument doesn't fit the position. The fact that there is no direct link between age and development doesn't mean there is no development and that the clasification can't be applied.
I haven't taken a stance on the 'classify everything' opinion yet. However, I do notice I often use the phrase "When all you've got is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail" that applies here too:
The publication is the hammer, and we are the nail look-alikes. We can slam the classification onto anyone, whether he/she likes it or not. How appropriate a classification is, is always hard to determine, especialy for people that are not experts in the field the classification is from.

you have to remember that applying theories about development and moral reasoning to Online gaming is very hard.. The theories these theorists have came up with were not made with Online gaming in mind... They can not be applied to an online game in my opinion..

Obviously, in my opinion this one can. If it said anything more about development and how punnishment relates to it, that might be different. However, as far as I can see it doesn't.
Given the arguments in this post, I can easily classify the majority of the non-Japanese PSO community as below stage 4. I exclude the Japanese because I lack the data on those. Although the little data I have seems to indicate higher development there, possibly caused by the different stance towards gaming and age.

On 2004-02-03 06:38, AppieDPC wrote:
However leave out the unbiased, you are clearly biased (not that I mind, to each his own).

I can see the argument in that. InCognito can be accused of wanting to proove cheating is wrong and he as a legit is better than the cheaters. Whether this is his motivation or not I leave open.

Some nice points Violetskye, it is indeed a theory on something that is very hard (if not impossible) to put in a "box": human beings.

That there are people graduating on subjects like this proves how hard it is. Yet, that doesn't mean it is impossible or this one is wrong. (or right for that matter) If this theory is as credible as InCognito claims, who are we to question that?

Stage 4. Abiding by law and sense of duty (only 15% of all people make it past stage 4)

Only 15% reach this stage? So in other words 15% of the PSO users would be legit? And 85% cheats? Hmmm... could be accurate

Uhm, no. It says only 15% make it PAST 4. As for the PSO community, you could be right. We're stuck with a load of below 4s...

So in my cheating ways I wouldn't get past stage 4(because I clearly don't respect the ToS), but with my legit chars I would?

When violating the ToS you don't even make it TO stage 4. Stage 4 is where you abide by the law just because it is the law.
The model isn't for classifying characters, it is for classifying humans. If you knowingly break the law that puts you below 4, even if you don't do it all the time.

Think I just found the flaw in Kohlberg's theory or in other words the exception to Kohlberg's theory: a human being which can be classified in more than one/two box(es).
Even when I play online in (legit) games wether it is for trade or a normal game, I will always tell that the items are dupes or not and if somebody wants an item (dupe or not, the choice is up to the other player to accept it or not). It becomes his choise based on his morals. My morals stand for having my fun(so can't go beyond Stage 2 of the theory?), wether that is with cheating chars or legit chars, and in the process trying to reduce the harm my fun could do to others. So in some ways (other than the ToS) I get beyond stage 4 in my cheating ways. I will help anybody either in their cheating ways or legit ways to the extend that I can. Hmmm beyond Stage 4 now? Clearly showing interest in the welfare of others, wether it is with dupes or not is up to player who wants the items. Either way me giving them dupes or legit items extends their fun (both in an unique way).
And what they find more fun to play is up to them not me. Like I said in the beginning of this post: To each his own. I might not respect the ToS, but I do respect that.

Good one. I wonder how someone with more knowlege on the subject would respond to that one:
Breaking the law (below 4) and causing negative effects to others (below 5) paired with being honest and giving others their choice (5!)

[ILLI]

Level A: Preconventional Level

* Punishment and Obedience
o Obedience to rules and authority/ avoidance of punishment



Hmmm are you sure you have an understanding of what Kohlberg's theory really is and means??

There are 3 stages.. Preconventional, conventional, postconventional

U seem to think we are all stuck in the Preconventional correct??..

If that is so then you must be aware of the rules and avoid the punishment .. this is the exact opposite of pso.. We are aware of the rules and realize there is no punishment..

His theory does not apply to Pso at all.. its a totally different situation and his theory wasn't fully thought out before you made this topic..

sorry i didnt mean to make you look bad but you pretty much told me I didnt know what I was talking about so now i have to start bringing in proof on why your wrong into this post..

Im looking forward to your rebuttal