[CrudeHypothesis]

This is not a thread about the rules that govern who you can sleep with.

By cheating I refer to the breaking of rules to gain advantage in competitive situations. Applying specifically to competing with brains, you're engaged in a battle of wits and the smarter person will win. By smarter I mean the person who can analyse more, identify the best strategy to obtaining the condition of victory, and implementing it successfully. I consider reality a game.

So you analyse the problem from many angles, and the fact that it's rules are just made up by people is yet another angle of looking at it. You step outside the box. If you can successfully time your deception, you can trick your opponent, and the fact that you understood the boundaries of the system and stepped outside of them to gain an advantage, and pulled it off successfully, means you outsmarted your opponent and you are entitled to your victory. The rules your opponent abides by shall be their undoing.

I postulate that this is correct logic. Do you agree or disagree, and specifically what part?

[TheWanderer]

Depends on what. If you mean things like using a cheat device or cheats SOMEONE ELSE made, well obviously that contradicts the reasoning you gave above, as you wouldn't be winning by your own intelligence, just some borrowed crap from someone else. Also in games where you can do unfair things with lag or crash a game your losing, your using something something not avaliable to everyone or something people hold back using because it ruins the game for all invovled.

As for other kinds of cheating, games are meant to test a certain amount of skills and stratergies and if you say, pull cards from nowhere then the game becomes a pull cards from nowhere contest rather than a true test of strategy. Other methods of cheating tend to make the game less and would drastically lower the experience if both people did it, so that rationale doesn't work.

What kind of cheating behaviour would you view as acceptable? Or at least what kind are you thinking of? Golden rule is a good way of evaluating, would you mind others doing it you? Especially if you came for a fair match

[AlfredSchnittke]

	Originally Posted by TheWanderer To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What kind of cheating behaviour would you view as acceptable? Or at least what kind are you thinking of? Golden rule is a good way of evaluating, would you mind others doing it you? Especially if you came for a fair match

That really begs the question entirely.

If there is something that would be a "dirty move" say (cheating) in some game you were playing, well, let's say a "real life" kind of game with no "real" rules, like war. Well, if your opponent is your precise equal, and you are contemplating making the dirty move, you should take precautions against such a move being effective against you, and try to make the move yourself. On the other hand you probably have to suppose your opponent is thinking the exact same thing...

Somewhere along the line one of you will think of a dirty move the other hasn't considered and blocked, and that is how winners are made.

Seems to me it depends what kind of game one is playing.

[CrudeHypothesis]

Originally Posted by TheWanderer To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Depends on what. If you mean things like using a cheat device or cheats SOMEONE ELSE made, well obviously that contradicts the reasoning you gave above, as you wouldn't be winning by your own intelligence, just some borrowed crap from someone else. Also in games where you can do unfair things with lag or crash a game your losing, your using something something not avaliable to everyone or something people hold back using because it ruins the game for all invovled.

You are right, the reasoning I gave excludes these deviations.

	Originally Posted by TheWanderer To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	As for other kinds of cheating, games are meant to test a certain amount of skills and stratergies and if you say, pull cards from nowhere then the game becomes a pull cards from nowhere contest rather than a true test of strategy. Other methods of cheating tend to make the game less and would drastically lower the experience if both people did it, so that rationale doesn't work.

Correct, the reasoning I gave excludes these possibilities also.

	Originally Posted by TheWanderer To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What kind of cheating behaviour would you view as acceptable? Or at least what kind are you thinking of? Golden rule is a good way of evaluating, would you mind others doing it you? Especially if you came for a fair match

I never mentioned fair match. The presupposition is that both are competing to best each other by any strategy conceivable, and that stepping outside conventional thinking to find a trick is part of strategy. Golden rule does not apply, as if one loses because their opponent outsmarted them, even if it was against the rules, one would still internally feel intellectually inferior. Ideally you'd want to beat them without them knowing.

Originally Posted by AlfredSchnittke To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

That really begs the question entirely. If there is something that would be a "dirty move" say (cheating) in some game you were playing, well, let's say a "real life" kind of game with no "real" rules, like war. Well, if your opponent is your precise equal, and you are contemplating making the dirty move, you should take precautions against such a move being effective against you, and try to make the move yourself. On the other hand you probably have to suppose your opponent is thinking the exact same thing... Somewhere along the line one of you will think of a dirty move the other hasn't considered and blocked, and that is how winners are made. Seems to me it depends what kind of game one is playing.

I agree. Apply it to any game you're supposed to win with brains and can get away with, like war.

[beav58]

	Originally Posted by CrudeHypothesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This is not a thread about the rules that govern who you can sleep with.

To start, nice disclaimer. I laughed my pants off when I read this. I mean no offense, it was just awesome!

	Originally Posted by CrudeHypothesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I consider reality a game.

Before I get into my personal opinions, I might point out and ask about this statement. Was this a indirect way to indicate you weren't speaking about actual games (Board Games, Video Games, Sports, Cards, etc.), but primarily reality in your entire post? It may be something you believe is interchangeable, but to me it is not, so it is difficult to give my full intent of my opinions on the subject without knowing this. Please bear that in mind when reading my opinion.



In my opinion, it is fair game as long as it is not a direct opposition of the rules. If you can change your interpretation of the rules to support your choices, then its fair. AKA, you bend them to your needs without breaking them. One thing, the rules are rarely so easy to understand, so you have wiggle room. With that said, I am under the impression that a game's rules are there to provide parameters for the players. It defeats the meaning or design of the game to outright ignore them. Anyone can change the rules completely, but it would have no meaning.

If it is a question of only winning, then yes, cheating doesn't matter. But, often games are more than just who wins or loses. Its a social experience and a personal challenge. The challenge comes from the rules and finding solutions within those constraints. It is a greater challenge and depth of intelligence to find an answer within the constraints. Once again, bending the rules seems more intelligent than downright ignoring them in terms of cheating, as it provides and actual challenge.

The social experience is driven about having "fun" for all. To be honest, no one likes to lose. If your opponent cheats to win, there really isn't any fair way to compete with that. If you don't want to engage in cheating to win, you would always be at a disadvantage. Thus, you would not want to play with someone who beliefs cheating is allowed. Ultimately, there is no game without opponents. So there is a degree of mutual understanding needed between players. To be frank, ignoring the rules of a game is also ignoring the feelings/values of those who believe rules are necessary. It can be considered insulting and change the dynamic of your relationship. There is nothing wrong with allowing cheating, but it should be agreed upon from everyone involved, not for the game or winning itself, but out of respect for the fellow players.

Anyway, I don't think cheating itself is a bad thing. Its only a potential option in order to increase your chances to win. However, cheating has consequences; denying those consequences seems irresponsible. To compare acts of war, it makes logic sense, winning is everything otherwise it might mean death, torture etc. But there are still serious consequences with underhanded means to win. At the end of the day, the question to ask, is winning so important that the consequences of cheating become acceptable? If it is, go right ahead, but accept those consequences with maturity. I think that is the only thing that anyone can really expect from anyone.

[Autumnleaf]

This reminds me of a Science News article I read awhile back. They were finding out how to improve your chances of winning the game "Chicken" where you drive toward someone else head on and the one that veers off first loses/is chicken.

They found that acting like you are crazy before starting the game improves the chances the other driver will be chicken.

[AlfredSchnittke]

	Originally Posted by Autumnleaf To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This reminds me of a Science News article I read awhile back. They were finding out how to improve your chances of winning the game "Chicken" where you drive toward someone else head on and the one that veers off first loses/is chicken. They found that acting like you are crazy before starting the game improves the chances the other driver will be chicken.

No shit?

lol

I guess that's one of those "obvious" things to get funding for (something everyone knows is true, but you have to do the experiment to confirm). How, pray tell, was the experiment conducted?

[CrudeHypothesis]

Originally Posted by beav58 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To start, nice disclaimer. I laughed my pants off when I read this. I mean no offense, it was just awesome! Before I get into my personal opinions, I might point out and ask about this statement. Was this a indirect way to indicate you weren't speaking about actual games (Board Games, Video Games, Sports, Cards, etc.), but primarily reality in your entire post? It may be something you believe is interchangeable, but to me it is not, so it is difficult to give my full intent of my opinions on the subject without knowing this. Please bear that in mind when reading my opinion. In my opinion, it is fair game as long as it is not a direct opposition of the rules. If you can change your interpretation of the rules to support your choices, then its fair. AKA, you bend them to your needs without breaking them. One thing, the rules are rarely so easy to understand, so you have wiggle room. With that said, I am under the impression that a game's rules are there to provide parameters for the players. It defeats the meaning or design of the game to outright ignore them. Anyone can change the rules completely, but it would have no meaning. If it is a question of only winning, then yes, cheating doesn't matter. But, often games are more than just who wins or loses. Its a social experience and a personal challenge. The challenge comes from the rules and finding solutions within those constraints. It is a greater challenge and depth of intelligence to find an answer within the constraints. Once again, bending the rules seems more intelligent than downright ignoring them in terms of cheating, as it provides and actual challenge. The social experience is driven about having "fun" for all. To be honest, no one likes to lose. If your opponent cheats to win, there really isn't any fair way to compete with that. If you don't want to engage in cheating to win, you would always be at a disadvantage. Thus, you would not want to play with someone who beliefs cheating is allowed. Ultimately, there is no game without opponents. So there is a degree of mutual understanding needed between players. To be frank, ignoring the rules of a game is also ignoring the feelings/values of those who believe rules are necessary. It can be considered insulting and change the dynamic of your relationship. There is nothing wrong with allowing cheating, but it should be agreed upon from everyone involved, not for the game or winning itself, but out of respect for the fellow players. Anyway, I don't think cheating itself is a bad thing. Its only a potential option in order to increase your chances to win. However, cheating has consequences; denying those consequences seems irresponsible. To compare acts of war, it makes logic sense, winning is everything otherwise it might mean death, torture etc. But there are still serious consequences with underhanded means to win. At the end of the day, the question to ask, is winning so important that the consequences of cheating become acceptable? If it is, go right ahead, but accept those consequences with maturity. I think that is the only thing that anyone can really expect from anyone.

About what you think I'm referring to; I'm intentionally keeping it abstract so that it can apply to as many things as it does. About breaking the rules defeating the meaning of the game; are you implying winning the lottery renders ones life meaningless? It seems to me everyone thinks I'm talking about board games. If you're playing a game that everybody cheats at, you can either complain that everyone's a cheater, or you can learn to cheat them.

[Polymath20]

Originally Posted by CrudeHypothesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This is not a thread about the rules that govern who you can sleep with. By cheating I refer to the breaking of rules to gain advantage in competitive situations. Applying specifically to competing with brains, you're engaged in a battle of wits and the smarter person will win. By smarter I mean the person who can analyse more, identify the best strategy to obtaining the condition of victory, and implementing it successfully. I consider reality a game. So you analyse the problem from many angles, and the fact that it's rules are just made up by people is yet another angle of looking at it. You step outside the box. If you can successfully time your deception, you can trick your opponent, and the fact that you understood the boundaries of the system and stepped outside of them to gain an advantage, and pulled it off successfully, means you outsmarted your opponent and you are entitled to your victory. The rules your opponent abides by shall be their undoing. I postulate that this is correct logic. Do you agree or disagree, and specifically what part?

Well, thinking outside the box Ender-style, sure, is a way to demonstrate greater mental ability.

However, this falls more under game theory. You would enjoy the work of John Nash.

Under ordinary games, people who cheat and attempt to deceive have unhealthy egos, IMO. The appearance of winning - the social recognition of winning - is more important to them than objectively measuring their ability.

It depends on the type of game and type of competition. And the type of crowd. And the stakes.

[Booko]

	Originally Posted by TheWanderer To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	As for other kinds of cheating, games are meant to test a certain amount of skills and stratergies and if you say, pull cards from nowhere then the game becomes a pull cards from nowhere contest rather than a true test of strategy.

That depends on the card game. Cheating is a part of the rules for Munchkins.

If everyone can cheat and everyone has to be vigilant about catching cheaters, then it suddenly becomes quite "fair."

---------- Post added 06-25-2012 at 11:45 AM ----------

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Under ordinary games, people who cheat and attempt to deceive have unhealthy egos, IMO. The appearance of winning - the social recognition of winning - is more important to them than objectively measuring their ability.

I've stacked the deck a few times in my life with the intent of taking down someone who was being an egotistical douche waffle to everyone else. Seriously, if someone wins because they're capable, great. But the boorish bragging when you win and the whining when you don't get old very fast. No one is "entitled" to win anything.

Other than that, I don't much see the point in cheating. How would I know if I did my best?

[Polymath20]

	Originally Posted by Booko To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Other than that, I don't much see the point in cheating. How would I know if I did my best?

That's what I mean - people who do cheat when it's not socially acceptable are not concerned with measuring their ability. In fact, they may know that their ability lacks. However, their ego demands victory, so they cheat.

Some people would cheat for money, though, or for any number of other reasons. Why do you think Lance Armstrong keeps using steroids? He gets lots of $$$ from sponsors for winning.