Gamers Caught Cheating

[thejuice]

"Let me get this straight. You're saying we should organise society along the lines of the lobsters?"

 

[Boogs]

You are focusing on societal influences, whereas, my context was neurological/biological realities.

Then you've not understood what I was saying. I was talking about environment, which could include social issues but they aren't the defining factor. Neurology is effected profoundly by environment, one could even say it's fundamental to the highly flexible nature of brain development.

There are older ppl who cheat, but it is predominantly younger ppl, whose brain hasn't developed fully, that seem to be the major problem.

This is what I was responding to. Don't forget it's predominately younger people who play these games, especially at a competitive level?

Integrity, honesty, and fair-mindedness, tend to be more developed in the fully mature brain.

How so? Are you saying that children start off basically dishonest, and as they mature they become more honest? Personally I'd say they learn to become better liars unless something happens to change their course (again, environment). Fair mindedness is pretty hard to judge with children vs adults since children have a poorer semantic understanding of what's fair, but again, many adults are worse because they can manipulate others better if they are of that nature. Sometimes children can be refreshingly honest and lacking in guile, I don't see how age relates beyond ability to understand complex events and situations, which of course children haven't had the practice and learning which an adult has had.

I'd be fascinated if you have any references for this? Any links? (but please nothing from Youtube, thank you)

 

[Boogs]

I never suggested it didn't, but you are missing the part about the intellectual development of the individual's brain from more emotional to more rational.

Again, I'm not convinced this is correct either - in fact to me children seem to find it harder to control their emotions than their intellect, or at least some may, it certainly doesn't seem to be a clear cut thing.
How do you come this conclusion?

I think the likelihood of someone being a cheater is more to do with the values instilled in them in maturing to adulthood (and further). Cheating is just another thing that society creates laws against, you could say stealing is cheating - not working for your gains, but rather taking another's.

But doing 'bad' things (such unfairly enriching oneself at the expense of others) is very common in humans, like all other entities we strive to gain resources however we can, we are evolved to do so. This is the very reason we have laws and rules and enforcement, if most children grew up to become honest adults we wouldn't need all that, it's the consequence's that keep us in order generally, recognising the consequence's to others, and the potential consequence's to ourselves, and if age is a factor it's more to do with getting old enough to realise what the punishments may be, and that they may well happen. But that's nothing to do with honesty and integrity.

To be fair I'm simplifying and missing out a lot of other relevant aspects, but in a way that's the point, it's not so simple as one factor having a direct relationship.

Jordan Peterson has talked about the effect on lobsters gaining a chemical hit when they win a dominance battle.
This then becomes addictive behaviour.

Don't particularly like JP, talks a lot of rubbish and covers it up with specialist academic vocabulary to confuse less educated people. If he was really good, he wouldn't need to do that intellectual BS, he could explain himself in normal language.

This is what most complex creatures do (having neurochemicals to modify brain function), especially us human beings. But most creatures with a brain will also have neurochemicals to control it. But what behaviour dishes out which neurochemicals is again depending on the values a person has. Someone with what we may call good social attitudes and values will likely not get the same pleasurable chemical buzz from cheating, while others may get more of a buzz winning by cheating more than anything else! (seeing themselves as superior when demonstrably not etc, blah blah...).

 

[Jonn]

Then you've not understood what I was saying. I was talking about environment, which could include social issues but they aren't the defining factor. Neurology is effected profoundly by environment, one could even say it's fundamental to the highly flexible nature of brain development.

Damn, I hate debates. <sigh>
My family was cursed with Devil's Advocacy from at least my grand mother's time on my mother's side.

I think it is clear that we are talking in cross porpoises.

Spoiler

This is going to get messy, ppl.
Buckle yourself in.

Butt:
How about you give a little, and I will?

Well, you didn't understand where I was coming, either.
A was referring to things such as:
"The Triune Theory" of brain development.

The triune brain theory is an evolutionary theory that describes the human brain as made up of three parts: the reptilian brain, the limbic system, and the neocortex. The theory was proposed by American neuroscientist Paul MacLean in the 1960s.

Google Search

It talks about how the more primitive/emotional parts of the brain develop more quickly than the intellectual prefrontal cortex.
And as a result, the individual tends to have less emotional control while being dominated by those emotions.

All things being equal, the same individual, with a fully developed brain, will have greater rational/logical/ethical abilities.
Are we good, so far?

Are you saying that an undeveloped brain is capable of the same degree of ethical consideration as does a brain with a fully developed prefrontal cortex, all things being equal?

Debate TBC, unfortunately. <sigh>

 

[Jonn]

In addition to motivations discussed already, in regard to hacking in particular:

I have visited hacking forums "To know thine enemy".
There is a twisted type of Esprit de Corps, within that community.
They find a camaraderie within, as gross as that may be to some of us.
They are rebels "Fighting the man", and to hell with the collateral damage of ordinary gamers.
Seriously?

Objectively, is it black & white?
Unfortunately, I can't see it that way.
It is a matter of personal priorities, personal perspective.

Some may think they are improving the standards of anti-cheat software.
I doubt there would be too many of "those ppl".
Some may embrace the principle of: "Toughen up, snowflake."
Some may believe: "If you can't beat us, join us."
Some may embrace: The weak deserve to be owned.
Some may embrace rule #1: "There are no rulz."
Didn't Captain James T. Kirk, from Star Trek, legitimised the Kobayashi Maru?

Morality is a man-made concept.
Perhaps it is the antithesis of the evolution process in some instances, at least?
"Might makes right", after all.
Just look at recent world events.

Live long and prosper.

 

[thejuice]

In addition to motivations discussed already, in regard to hacking in particular:

I have visited hacking forums "To know thine enemy".
There is a twisted type of Esprit de Corps, within that community.
They find a camaraderie within, as gross as that may be to some of us.
They are rebels "Fighting the man", and to hell with the collateral damage of ordinary gamers.
Seriously?

Objectively, is it black & white?
Unfortunately, I can't see it that way.
It is a matter of personal priorities, personal perspective.

Some may think they are improving the standards of anti-cheat software.
I doubt there would be too many of "those ppl".
Some may embrace the principle of: "Toughen up, snowflake."
Some may believe: "If you can't beat us, join us."
Some may embrace: The weak deserve to be owned.
Some may embrace rule #1: "There are no rulz."
Didn't Captain James T. Kirk, from Star Trek, legitimised the Kobayashi Maru?

Morality is a man-made concept.
Perhaps it is the antithesis of the evolution process in some instances, at least?
"Might makes right", after all.
Just look at recent world events.

Live long and prosper.

There is a trend of trying not to privilige one set of ethics over an other. You can't be judgemental, that's insensitive. To each their own because there is no objective truth. But it leads to moral chaos and tolerating the intolerable. (Like wall hacks )

 

[Boogs]

Well, you didn't understand where I was coming, either.
A was referring to things such as:
"The Triune Theory" of brain development.

Do you think maybe mentioning something as obscure as that theory (in the general run of things, I'm not a psychologist or neurologist) may just possibly have given your post more meaning?
You complain I don't understand you, but then pull a rabbit out the hat to prove it.
Why not introduce the theory as what your comment is based on or relating to if that's the understanding you want to give?

The theory is pretty old now (60's I believe?) and despite all that time still hasn't gained traction, regardless of how accurate it may or may not be, you really need to provide something to say why you think it's the one to take note of? Pulling out a theory to prove your case needs a well recognised and accepted theory, or needs some sort of justification for me to take it as anything like gospel. Otherwise we can spend all day throwing theories at each other to no gain.

And when it's things like "tends to have" and "all things being equal" etc. that leaves a lot of background unstated and assumed, basically I'd have to go read up on the theory (and whatever background I'd need) to have an inkling about what you're saying, no?
And telling me what I'm focussing on, then not engaging or acknowledging when I say I'm not, isn't really debate.

Damn, I hate debates. <sigh>

Then why bother?
We both know this isn't going anywhere helpful, and is just turning into a battle of wills ("I'm right!", "No! I'm right", "No!!! ..."). Shall we just put it down and not do this again? Nothing personal, sometimes I agree with what you say, but we are not compatible for healthy debate from my experience so far. Simple as that.

 

[Cryptid]

I used to play World of Tanks a lot, until it got to the point where my tanks always got wasted as soon as I moved out of the starting circle. Then I found out as much as I could about premium accounts and aiming bots.

Now when I play, it's at the lower levels where few people bother with such things.

 

[Boogs]

Some may think they are improving the standards of anti-cheat software.
I doubt there would be too many of "those ppl".
Some may embrace the principle of: "Toughen up, snowflake."
Some may believe: "If you can't beat us, join us."
Some may embrace: The weak deserve to be owned.
Some may embrace rule #1: "There are no rulz."
Didn't Captain James T. Kirk, from Star Trek, legitimised the Kobayashi Maru?

Maybe some people are just driven to take an intellectual challenge, and eCheating/Hacking is just one example.
And most people who do this come up with their arguments after the fact. Some put that into white hacking, and the "I do it to improve security" is a useful getout clause and however much it's not true for some, it's also part of the source of the anti-malware industry. This is an evolution in itself.
It's a complex ecosystem with so many rabbit holes now it's hard to get a good and complete feel for it. Just like normal society?

Perhaps it is the antithesis of the evolution process in some instances, at least?
"Might makes right", after all.

I'd argue the opposite by the results, we've evolved to behave like this. Isn't might makes right one of the founding principles in evolution? Whatever method of being better at resource gathering will be promoted if it works - survival of the fittest, to use the old phrase. Hence why fastest, fittest, strongest tended to be the most successful and hence not extinct yet.
Morality is just one of the things we've developed in the evolving of our species to exploit communal efforts, which as we we know are more effective - the sum of the parts exceeds them. How it is perceived by us is unreliable subjective data. Morality is just a framework of efficient cooperation and organisation?

Evolution is often meaningless hacks that just happened to work (I can explain this if interested but I'm writing too much so won't otherwise) - "random mutation" is part of the mechanism.

 

[Jonn]

There is a trend of trying not to privilige one set of ethics over an other. You can't be judgemental, that's insensitive. To each their own because there is no objective truth. But it leads to moral chaos and tolerating the intolerable. (Like wall hacks )

I am pretty easy-going in many areas.
"Whatever floats your boat..."
"Whatever bakes your cookies..."
I try not to be a binary/Black&White sort of person.

But if I have a problem, I usually have the option of walking away, especially if there is no apparent fix.
"Don't like the channel?
Change it."

I have come to terms with not playing multiplayer games.
"There are bigger fish to fry."

Try dealing with 40 years of brutal gang-stalking, with no recourse, since it is establishment covert terrorism.
Perhaps it will change your life perspective, also.

 

[Jonn]

Do you think maybe mentioning something as obscure as that theory (in the general run of things, I'm not a psychologist or neurologist) may just possibly have given your post more meaning?
You complain I don't understand you, but then pull a rabbit out the hat to prove it.
Why not introduce the theory as what your comment is based on or relating to if that's the understanding you want to give?

Ppl generally jump into a conversation without clarifying the context involved.
Defining context/parameters initially is virtually unheard of in casual conversation.
I recall only one other person, apart from myself, who have done this, to date.
If ppl are not on the same page, clarification may then be in order.

I am interested in discussions rather than debates.
If I don't understand where someone is coming from, then it is time to "get down and dirty" with in-depth clarification.
If I start to attack the premise without this clarification, then I too am guilty of entering into a debating situation.

I am not saying I don't challenge a premise, at times.
I just try not to make a habit of it.

In a previous misunderstanding with you, I did submit questions meant to clarify.

I.E.
Are you creating a straw-man argument?
Clarification could have been as simple as:
"No, I am not, what makes you say that?"

I.E,
Are you trying to invalidate my experiences?
"No I am not.
I appreciate you may have a POV that I don't necessarily share/understand, but we are all entitled to our own opinion."

Black & White or Right & Wrong thinking is rarely appropriate.
I prefer shades of grey.
And I value sharing of information.

 

[Boogs]

Ppl generally jump into a conversation without clarifying the context involved.

Does that change my point?
(Personally I could spend all day criticising what people generally do (hell, I probably do!), it has little to do with anything as far as I can see.)

Defining context/parameters initially is virtually unheard of in casual conversation.

If this is that much a casual conversation, that we can't have an empirical rational debate on it without context and parameters (i.e. defining the problem domain accurately and precisely as possible), then what's the point?
I'm honestly beginning to think you want to prove me wrong more than anything, so I suspect you're reading me as telling everyone how everything is (i.e. I'm arrogant and patronising), when I actually only write about what I think is but have a poor style of putting that across. I can understand how it could be read as that (it often is), but if you are, that's a perfectly reasonable and common mistake, but misleading.

If you're basing what you're saying specifically on that or any other theory not commonly accepted and known, then that's 'not providing' context rather than 'not clarifying' context, if you don't mention it.
If the subject matter is universally accepted as being correct then you're quite right, no-one should need to quote Newton and Einstein just to have a conversation of any gravity (sorry, couldn't resist that one! ), but to use less well accepted and/or unknown theories to base your point on is not the same at all in my opinion.

I am interested in discussions rather than debates.

The difference being?

I recall only one other person, apart from myself, who have done this, to date.

I don't know what point that's making? Are you saying you've never spoken with anyone bar one person who explained what they were talking about?

If I don't understand where someone is coming from, then it is time to "get down and dirty" with in-depth clarification.
If I start to attack the premise without this clarification, then I too am guilty of entering into a debating situation.

'Guilty' of debating? Why would a proper debate be the cause of guilt? It sounds like you disparage debating?
I'm beginning to think we may be defining 'debate' differently?

But regards context, if you base your opening comments on a theory that's neither well known or universally recognised within the field as being correct, then your whole message is predicated on that theory against the more well known and recognised theories, and not to mention it is starting off a line of discussion making bold and forthright claims (which may be correct) without any explanation at all, just saying 'this' is correct without any reasoning, which isn't a discussion as I would see it.

Maybe you are doing what I too do (being contrary almost only for the sake of it (not quite accurate but close enough)), but if so, then we are definitely wasting our time here!

 

[thejuice]

.

Don't particularly like JP, talks a lot of rubbish and covers it up with specialist academic vocabulary to confuse less educated people. If he was really good, he wouldn't need to do that intellectual BS, he could explain himself in normal language.

He does throw in an occasional big word but I think he likes precise language, efficiency in communication and meanings. I think a lot of people who watch him never had the means to go to university, but they have a hunger to learn and expand their horizons. I admire that he doesn't patronise the public, like TV does, he expects them to be able to keep up. The public can handle 2 hours of intellectual talk on a podcast. With Google and Wiki we all have near infinite capacity to upgrade ourselves, depending on how open minded we are.

I think he's a role model for men, in a society that doesnt appreciate them. I've learned a lot from him, and the big words don't seem gratituitous or vain from my perspective. Not like a horrific post modernist who will bamboozle and word salad the audience to fortify their power. (The very same sort of power and prestige they claim to challenge)

 

[Boogs]

To be honest, and this is only from my own point of view, I think he very much does patronise, even when he may be right.
I had huge admiration for his brave stance on certain issues early on, but now he's opted for populism over the academic - if I had to guess I suspect he found that winning his arguments was so easy it lost any challenge and hence his interest. Other academics have done similar when they've leveraged their initial position and/or area of interest, look at the number of views Sabine Hossenfelder got when she started talking about science's politics instead of just the science itself which she's very good at.

To be fair there's huge pressure to go with this sort of attitude, and just because I don't like it, doesn't really mean much in the greater scheme of things (or even the lesser).

I think getting into a discussion over him isn't really appropriate here as it would get into religious and political topics; and I don't deny he has a fearsomely impressive intellect, but it's that high standard he set that disappointed me so much with his later commentary which to my mind ended up more as the ends rather than the means. He's capable of so much more I felt disappointed he'd opted for such an anti-intellectual stance.

Hmmm, that was a bit sneaky of me! Pre-emptively trying to block further discussion and then throwing in my own opinion to get the last word! I must be improving my written communication skills!

 

[Jonn]

Does that change my point?

"Let us agree to disagree" in this discussion for now,at least.

 

[Jonn]

But would you do that if you did play multiplayer?

@[S]Outsider[/S]
Edit:
I meant @Outdated.

 

[Boogs]

"Let us agree to disagree" in this discussion for now,at least.

Nope! Sorry! Not nearly contentious enough!
How about, forget the topic in hand, and I'll refuse to agree to disagree for no other reason than to be an annoying little so... a contrarian?

 

[Jonn]

Nope! Sorry! Not nearly contentious enough!
How about, forget the topic in hand, and I'll refuse to agree to disagree for no other reason than to be an annoying little so... a contrarian?

You are spoon intensive, too much for my limited stash, sorry.

 

[Jonn]

Read the very first 4 words of my message you responded to: I never play online.

I am having trouble concentrating, atm.
Too much caffeine.
Not enough quality sleep.
Hopefully that is the only reason.

What is your attitude, in regard to hacking, in multiplayer gaming?

 

[Jonn]

I used to play World of Tanks a lot, until it got to the point where my tanks always got wasted as soon as I moved out of the starting circle. Then I found out as much as I could about premium accounts and aiming bots.

Now when I play, it's at the lower levels where few people bother with such things.

I have no interest in playing with aimbots.
To me, it would be totally pointless, and a waste of my time, since I am not dominance-driven.
I don't get a chemical high from "Tea Bagging" ppl.

Generally, I preferred playing a supportive role in PvP.
Apparently, I don't have the toxic masculinity virus. <shrug>