Cheating in Runescape and the Bigger Picture

[Tact]

"Whether you agree with the rules or not, you should not cheat, in life, in games or anywhere. "

 

Lol, this ENTIRELY depends on your own set of morals. These morals are generally derived from culture, religion or other beliefs.

 

Morals are defined by nurture & not nature.

 

Society dictates morals, religion preaches morals.

 

However not every society is equal, not every religion believes in the same morals.

 

You also have the power as an individual not to be a member of society & not to have a religion.

 

There is nothing in our genetic code that tells us not to cheat.

 

You could perhaps argue because the game is HOSTED in the UK (Which again isn't true since they have servers elsewhere) we should abide by british morality.

 

The internet is it's own country, it's own society, it's own religion. There are no borders, there is no universal moral code on what should & shouldn't be allowed on the internet.

I bolded the 2 parts of your post that I'm going to address.

 

First of all, there's a branch of biology that deals with the study of the biological basis of morals and ethics. You can find a nice summary here:

 

http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/notabene/ethics-biology.html

 

There is evidence as to why there are many rules in a "code of ethnics" which is shared by almost all human cultures around the world. Among them are things like, thou shall not steal or cheat. These morals lubricate the contact that we have with other people; it helps everyone when there are basic rules governing how we lead our lives.

 

Second, you argue that the internet is it's own society, but you ignore the influence that other societies have on it. The internet isn't just some isolated group entity where what applies in the real world just flies out the window. What people think, what people believe, and what morals they adhere to don't change when they log on. People somehow think that all the rules change just because the internet grants anonymity. Some things do change, but morals should not.

[Naraku893]

 

1+

 

i lolled irl

[Tact]

snip

 

1+

 

i lolled irl

It's inevitable that people are going to post memes without reading through my entire argument, or adding anything useful to the discussion. I don't mind as long as this thread doesn't become a spamfest of these things.

 

And for all the posters who are saying that Runescape =/= real life. I know this. But I'm saying that who you are in real life has an effect on how you play Runescape, specifically with how you morally reconcile your attitude toward botting.

[All_Is_Great]

Tact, answer me this.

 

Is it morally wrong to bot agility? Would it still be morally wrong if Jagex allowed botting like some other games do?

 

 

I would say it is ethically wrong.

 

I would morally have no problem with botting, but my good gaming ethic has always kept me from doing so.

 

Another person might say instead as the main reason they won't bot is because 3rd party programs are too risky. Practical outlook, that.

 

Wouldn't be surprised if a few who think that way decide to write their own - and led to this blow up of the botting problem.

 

EDIT: It's become clear the line's been drawn, those who believe Runescape is serious business they'll bring real life morality into the question, and those who are in, "it's just a game." Hah!

 

I pity those who cannot separate reality from fiction. Good day, sirs.

 

Uh what? If I don't think cheating is right in RS, I can't separate reality from fiction??? OK.

 

Gooday to you too, ma'am.

[Obtaurian]

So essentially OP's argument boils down to "this is my opinion and anyone who disagrees is a moral nihilist." Gotcha. I'm still waiting for you to explain why I can't up the ante on your analogies; you have no right to set the "moral parameters" of this argument, so to speak. If you can claim that botting is akin to cheating on a test, I can claim that botting is akin to rape. What's the difference? :rolleyes:

I made no such claim. I clearly explained why your whole rape analogy is misleading and just an attempt to change my position into one which is ridiculous. You can't simply claim that botting is akin to cheating on a test and being morally bankrupt because you want to, it has to be relevant to the discussion at hand. It has neither the same moral weight or situational weight, nor have you made a persuasive case as to why it can be a logical extension to my argument.

 

I've switched out my example for yours. It's pretty amusing to me that your argument works for both my rape analogy and your cheating on tests analogy. Could it be because you're still attempting to set moral parameters for your analogies to support your original assertion? Yeah, I think so.

[Snowpelt]

I think you miss the point. The point is botting is still cheating, it may only be a game but that doesn't change that its wrong to cheat. People know there cheating and do it anyway, doesn't matter if its a game.

 

So what you're saying is that rules are inherently morally righteous because they're the rules. Nice logic fail. :rolleyes:

 

I'm not saying that, the rules may not be morally righteous but that doesn't mean that its ok to brake them. I may not like a driving law but that doesn't mean its morally right to brake it. Its the same thing here, you may not like it but its a rule.

[Tact]

So essentially OP's argument boils down to "this is my opinion and anyone who disagrees is a moral nihilist." Gotcha. I'm still waiting for you to explain why I can't up the ante on your analogies; you have no right to set the "moral parameters" of this argument, so to speak. If you can claim that botting is akin to cheating on a test, I can claim that botting is akin to rape. What's the difference? :rolleyes:

I made no such claim. I clearly explained why your whole rape analogy is misleading and just an attempt to change my position into one which is ridiculous. You can't simply claim that botting is akin to cheating on a test and being morally bankrupt because you want to, it has to be relevant to the discussion at hand. It has neither the same moral weight or situational weight, nor have you made a persuasive case as to why it can be a logical extension to my argument.

 

I've switched out my example for yours. It's pretty amusing to me that your argument works for both my rape analogy and your cheating on tests analogy. Could it be because you're still attempting to set moral parameters for your analogies to support your original assertion? Yeah, I think so.

You don't seem to understand my point at all. Instead you keep trying to force words into my mouth to make it seem that your point is valid, which it isn't, instead of trying to actually address my argument.

 

What I actually said is that people use the same justifications for both botting and cheating on a test:

 

When I bot, I'm not hurting anyone, so why does it matter?

When I cheat on a test, I'm not hurting anyone, so why does it matter?

 

Try to get that into your head. I did not nor have I ever suggested that cheating on a test makes you morally bankrupt. In fact, I understand that there are various levels of "immorality" in ethics, namely, that you can't equate botting with rape:

 

When I rape, I'm not hurting anyone, so why does it matter?

 

That's just a silly argument to make.

[Big_Stingman]

I read that article you posted. Very interesting, and I see your point. Making choices in whatever one does can affect other decisions in things completely unrelated, even if it's subconsciously and you don't even realize it.

 

I have personally never witnessed a direct correlation between botting and cheating on tests though (I can see where you are coming from). I knew many, many people that cheated on tests when I was in high school, and 99% of them didn't even know what RuneScape was. They are far worse things out there that outweigh the affects botting on RuneScape has on someone.

 

Now that I am in college, the bulk of students who attend my university do not cheat, because you will get kicked out if you do. Here at BYU, we have something called the BYU Honor Code (Cheating, physical appearance, etc.). If you break it, you are no longer able to represent the school and can be kicked out. Most students take this code and apply it into their lives, even in dealings not related to the university (in my experience with other students here).

 

If you think something is "ok to do" for a long enough time, anything that is considered morally wrong can than be construed as being "ok to do" in one's own eyes.

 

At least for me though and my own personal experience, what I do in RuneScape stays in RuneScape. It has had no affect on my real life whatsoever, other than some chat about the game with real life friends.

[Tact]

I read that article you posted. Very interesting, and I see your point. Making choices in whatever one does can affect other decisions in things completely unrelated, even if it's subconsciously and you don't even realize it.

 

I have personally never witnessed a direct correlation between botting and cheating on tests though (I can see where you are coming from though). I knew many, many people that cheated on tests when I was in high school, and 99% of them didn't even know what RuneScape was.

 

Now that I am in college, the bulk of students who attend my university do not cheat, because you will get kicked out if you do. Here at BYU, we have something called the BYU Honor Code (Cheating, physical appearance, etc.). If you break it, you are no longer able to represent the school and can be kicked out. Most students take this code and apply it into their lives, even in dealings not related to the university (in my experience with other students here).

 

If you think something is "ok to do" for a long enough time, anything that is considered morally wrong can than be construed as being "ok to do" in one's own eyes.

 

At least for me though and my own personal experience, what I do in RuneScape stays in RuneScape. It has had no affect on my real life whatsoever, other than some chat about the game with real life friends.

I heard about the BYU honor code. Apparently a student on the basketball team confessed that he'd had premarital sex, and was subsequently barred from playing that season. It's admirable, but more and more rare in American society. I just don't think that based on the evidence out there that many people take their morals as seriously as they perhaps should. The internet and online games have created a refuge to bend and perhaps break rules we would not consider doing offline. But there's a danger in this train of thought, seen in how more and more students believe that cheating is OK, or even necessary in some cases. I don't think some people realize how close their two spheres of thought, the one online and the other offline, are to colliding.

[Vex]

"Players trying to justify botting by saying it doesn't harm anyone or that it's because botters have a better sense of priorities are just deluding themselves. I laugh at people who say that botters take real life more seriously than Runescape, so they're saving themselves time to focus on other, more "important" things. What you don't seem to realize is that this laissez-faire attitude also carries over to the other parts of your life as well."

 

So by this logic the laissez-faire attitude applies to you if:

 

You use any equipment designed by man so that man doesn't have to do all the work, despite the fact man COULD do it once upon a time, now he can do it more efficiently or do something else in parallel but achieving the same outcome.

Using that oven? That transcends from laziness, get your sticks out an light a fire. Hell you'll still cook your food but at least you will keep your morality intact.

 

So is someone who bots more likely to order take-away or a microwave meal because they are lazy?

Or will they be more inclined to cook because they're character's busy chopping yews so that they can meet the requirements in order to do a quest later on that night, which is the one aspect of the game they really enjoy.

 

I bet you drive or cycle to work. Why, when you can run or walk? Why use a machine to make life easier?

 

What if you could spend an extra hour each day walking to work instead of driving & not actually lose any time in your virtual universe. You'll still be able to compete with said rival whom has spent an extra hour on the game. Yet you will have the moral high ground as you aren't supposedly killing the planet, and he is by driving. I mean it's logical to assume that preservation of humanity in this aspect is of a greater moral responsibility than perhaps the governance of morals of which man live under. We can still exist without morals but we cannot exist without a habitable planet.

 

 

 

A virtual reality & a physical reality are 2 separate entities. However they are 2 separate entities governed by the limitation of time. Time is required to participate in both and as the 2 realities are controlled by 1 person they must always choose how they divide that time between the 2 realities.

 

To spend time in one reality you must sacrifice time in the other. Now there are 2 scenarios depending on your moral situation you must choose between them.

 

Option 1) Place greater emphasis on your virtual life by sacrificing your morals in your organic life. You opt to play your virtual life by choosing to microwave (a man made creation in order to automate your physical life) your dinner and eat in front of the computer while playing your digitized avatar of your moral self.

 

Option 2) Place greater emphasis on your physical life by sacrificing your digital morals. You spend an hour cooking a dinner from scratch, pasta and all. You then sit down to eat this meal, your digital life is still running parallel to your organic one.

 

However are you morally superior or inferior because you decided to not automate your dinner and instead elected to automate your digitized life.

 

Using a microwave to heat meals is consider unethical and a form of cheating when it comes to the preparation of food.

Using a script to automate your virtual character is also cheating and against the rules.

 

 

Runescape is a virtual place, a creation. It is bound by a set of laws and not ethics. Ethics are a man-made fabrication that apply to how our physical lives are governed and how our society is ran. Ethics do not apply to Runescape (aside from social interaction as you are using Runescape as a device to communicate with another physical being, therefore social ethics apply when communicating between players.) Runescape has it's own laws. The laws of Runescape do not apply to the physical world, and the physical worlds laws do not apply to Runescapes laws. If laws are derived from ethics then how can these 2 separate entities share the same set of ethics, if they do not share the same set of laws.

 

You are able to automate and simulate in the physical world and it not be deemed immoral.

You are able to kill one another in Runescape and it not be deemed immoral nor against the law.

 

This example may sound stupid, because it is. Using the same ethics and set of rules and applying both equally to both worlds doesn't work.

 

Cheating in one world does not necessarily mean it is immoral in the other nor does it mean your actions will automatically transcend or have an impact on your decisions in either scenario.

[Tact]

"Players trying to justify botting by saying it doesn't harm anyone or that it's because botters have a better sense of priorities are just deluding themselves. I laugh at people who say that botters take real life more seriously than Runescape, so they're saving themselves time to focus on other, more "important" things. What you don't seem to realize is that this laissez-faire attitude also carries over to the other parts of your life as well."

 

So by this logic the laissez-faire attitude applies to you if:

 

You use any equipment designed by man so that man doesn't have to do all the work, despite the fact man COULD do it once upon a time, now he can do it more efficiently or do something else in parallel but achieving the same outcome.

Using that oven? That transcends from laziness, get your sticks out an light a fire. Hell you'll still cook your food but at least you will keep your morality intact.

 

So is someone who bots more likely to order take-away or a microwave meal because they are lazy?

Or will they be more inclined to cook because they're character's busy chopping yews so that they can meet the requirements in order to do a quest later on that night, which is the one aspect of the game they really enjoy.

 

I bet you drive or cycle to work. Why, when you can run or walk? Why use a machine to make life easier?

 

What if you could spend an extra hour each day walking to work instead of driving & not actually lose any time in your virtual universe. You'll still be able to compete with said rival whom has spent an extra hour on the game. Yet you will have the moral high ground as you aren't supposedly killing the planet, and he is by driving. I mean it's logical to assume that preservation of humanity in this aspect is of a greater moral responsibility than perhaps the governance of morals of which man live under. We can still exist without morals but we cannot exist without a habitable planet.

 

 

 

A virtual reality & a physical reality are 2 separate entities. However they are 2 separate entities governed by the limitation of time. Time is required to participate in both and as the 2 realities are controlled by 1 person they must always choose how they divide that time between the 2 realities.

 

To spend time in one reality you must sacrifice time in the other. Now there are 2 scenarios depending on your moral situation you must choose between them.

 

Option 1) Place greater emphasis on your virtual life by sacrificing your morals in your organic life. You opt to play your virtual life by choosing to microwave (a man made creation in order to automate your physical life) your dinner and eat in front of the computer while playing your digitized avatar of your moral self.

 

Option 2) Place greater emphasis on your physical life by sacrificing your digital morals. You spend an hour cooking a dinner from scratch, pasta and all. You then sit down to eat this meal, your digital life is still running parallel to your organic one.

 

However are you morally superior or inferior because you decided to not automate your dinner and instead elected to automate your digitized life.

 

Using a microwave to heat meals is consider unethical and a form of cheating when it comes to the preparation of food.

Using a script to automate your virtual character is also cheating and against the rules.

 

 

Runescape is a virtual place, a creation. It is bound by a set of laws and not ethics. Ethics are a man-made fabrication that apply to how our physical lives are governed and how our society is ran. Ethics do not apply to Runescape (aside from social interaction as you are using Runescape as a device to communicate with another physical being, therefore social ethics apply when communicating between players.) Runescape has it's own laws. The laws of Runescape do not apply to the physical world, and the physical worlds laws do not apply to Runescapes laws. If laws are derived from ethics then how can these 2 separate entities share the same set of ethics, if they do not share the same set of laws.

 

You are able to automate and simulate in the physical world and it not be deemed immoral.

You are able to kill one another in Runescape and it not be deemed immoral nor against the law.

 

This example may sound stupid, because it is. Using the same ethics and set of rules and applying both equally to both worlds doesn't work.

 

Cheating in one world does not necessarily mean it is immoral in the other nor does it mean your actions will automatically transcend or have an impact on your decisions in either scenario.

The first part of your post was just one big facepalm. It's full of logical fallacies; basically you take my example and stretch it to the ridiculous extremes while adding in arguments which I did not discuss and trying to construe it as mine.

 

The flaw in your second point is that you assume being moral online is mutually exclusive to being moral offline, and vice versa. My point is simply that they're not. You can't be the "online" you without have some influence from the "offline" you. These things carry over, including your morals. (I don't even know how you think I suggested that cooking with a microwave is immoral...)

 

Runescape may be a virtual place, but it's inhabited by the same kind of people you see walking down the street. Of course, the idea of it being a game necessitates that certain "laws" of nature are bent, for example, you can cast magic in RS but not in RL. However, morals are something which transcends all this, because it has to do with the human element that also crosses the virtual boundary between game and life. In this case, you're still treating Runescape as if it's completely separate from reality, like 2 spheres which never meet. It's quite the opposite in fact, especially with botting as it requires people's RL time to make and use a bot.

[Obtaurian]

So essentially OP's argument boils down to "this is my opinion and anyone who disagrees is a moral nihilist." Gotcha. I'm still waiting for you to explain why I can't up the ante on your analogies; you have no right to set the "moral parameters" of this argument, so to speak. If you can claim that botting is akin to cheating on a test, I can claim that botting is akin to rape. What's the difference? :rolleyes:

I made no such claim. I clearly explained why your whole rape analogy is misleading and just an attempt to change my position into one which is ridiculous. You can't simply claim that botting is akin to cheating on a test and being morally bankrupt because you want to, it has to be relevant to the discussion at hand. It has neither the same moral weight or situational weight, nor have you made a persuasive case as to why it can be a logical extension to my argument.

 

I've switched out my example for yours. It's pretty amusing to me that your argument works for both my rape analogy and your cheating on tests analogy. Could it be because you're still attempting to set moral parameters for your analogies to support your original assertion? Yeah, I think so.

You don't seem to understand my point at all. Instead you keep trying to force words into my mouth to make it seem that your point is valid, which it isn't, instead of trying to actually address my argument.

 

What I actually said is that people use the same justifications for both botting and cheating on a test:

 

When I bot, I'm not hurting anyone, so why does it matter?

When I cheat on a test, I'm not hurting anyone, so why does it matter?

 

Try to get that into your head. I did not nor have I ever suggested that cheating on a test makes you morally bankrupt. In fact, I understand that there are various levels of "immorality" in ethics, namely, that you can't equate botting with rape:

 

When I rape, I'm not hurting anyone, so why does it matter?

 

That's just a silly argument to make.

 

Wait, did you just say that cheating on a test doesn't hurt anyone so it's okay? No wonder you're having such a hard time proving your point - your point is flawed! Botting doesn't hurt anyone (well, unless you count pride [whiners gonna whine]) while cheating on a test does. So you're comparing something that hurts no-one to something that not only hurts others, but has real world implications, consequences, and effects that could potentially be felt for years and years to come (whether through getting caught and losing your chances at a degree or someone putting you in a position of authority when you lack the ability to perform in that position, etc).

 

You know what else has real world implications, consequences, and effects that could potentially be felt for years to come? Rape. Please stop saying that botters are morally bankrupt and comparing them to cheaters and rapists. It's getting old.

[Andy]

I was caught botting and now I have no job, my wife left me, i'm in crippling debt.. don't mess with bots guys.

[BioIce]

 

Uh what? If I don't think cheating is right in RS, I can't separate reality from fiction??? OK.

 

Gooday to you too, ma'am.

 

Nope.

 

OP is using examples like cheating on a test = cheating on a game. One is reality, the other is fiction. He says who you are in reality influences your morals in a fictional world and an encounter with botting can influence your personal morals, thereby influencing your reality with likely negative results. I.e. you end up botting because you don't see it as bad anymore. He concludes from that if you are exposed for too long to an evil in a game, there is a higher chance, just a chance, that you will do something evil in reality. I don't think so. It's like blaming murders on violent video games.

 

OP also cannot seem to grasp that you in reality != you in a videogame. Like I said before, there's an RPG in that MMORPG.

 

I don't agree with his ideas unless you're deluded and mixing up reality with fiction and as a result thinking it's serious business. It's not. It's just a game. Cheating on a test is one thing. Cheating in a game is another. One is a horrible life-ruining decision, the other is for entertainment. The first is serious with devastating consequences. The second is irrelevant and insignificant. They are not the same. This is my perspective.

 

EDIT: I think the one thing that is missing from the OP's consideration that would give sense to his arguments are consequences. That and morals go hand in hand. What's stopping us from killing each other? Jail time. What's stopping us from botting? Stat resets and bans. Weigh those two according to your morals, and the latter seems much lighter in consequence, so you are more tempted to bot than to kill IRL.

 

Hmm. Then again, still doesn't mean if you're bombarded with botting, botting everywhere that you'll be tempted to hijack a golf cart for the engine parts one day. Maybe if you were very, very stupid and inbred. It's all apples and oranges to me. Oh well.

[Tact]

So essentially OP's argument boils down to "this is my opinion and anyone who disagrees is a moral nihilist." Gotcha. I'm still waiting for you to explain why I can't up the ante on your analogies; you have no right to set the "moral parameters" of this argument, so to speak. If you can claim that botting is akin to cheating on a test, I can claim that botting is akin to rape. What's the difference? :rolleyes:

I made no such claim. I clearly explained why your whole rape analogy is misleading and just an attempt to change my position into one which is ridiculous. You can't simply claim that botting is akin to cheating on a test and being morally bankrupt because you want to, it has to be relevant to the discussion at hand. It has neither the same moral weight or situational weight, nor have you made a persuasive case as to why it can be a logical extension to my argument.

 

I've switched out my example for yours. It's pretty amusing to me that your argument works for both my rape analogy and your cheating on tests analogy. Could it be because you're still attempting to set moral parameters for your analogies to support your original assertion? Yeah, I think so.

You don't seem to understand my point at all. Instead you keep trying to force words into my mouth to make it seem that your point is valid, which it isn't, instead of trying to actually address my argument.

 

What I actually said is that people use the same justifications for both botting and cheating on a test:

 

When I bot, I'm not hurting anyone, so why does it matter?

When I cheat on a test, I'm not hurting anyone, so why does it matter?

 

Try to get that into your head. I did not nor have I ever suggested that cheating on a test makes you morally bankrupt. In fact, I understand that there are various levels of "immorality" in ethics, namely, that you can't equate botting with rape:

 

When I rape, I'm not hurting anyone, so why does it matter?

 

That's just a silly argument to make.

 

Wait, did you just say that cheating on a test doesn't hurt anyone so it's okay? No wonder you're having such a hard time proving your point - your point is flawed! Botting doesn't hurt anyone (well, unless you count pride [whiners gonna whine]) while cheating on a test does. So you're comparing something that hurts no-one to something that not only hurts others, but has real world implications, consequences, and effects that could potentially be felt for years and years to come (whether through getting caught and losing your chances at a degree or someone putting you in a position of authority when you lack the ability to perform in that position, etc).

 

You know what else has real world implications, consequences, and effects that could potentially be felt for years to come? Rape. Please stop saying that botters are morally bankrupt and comparing them to cheaters and rapists. It's getting old.

1. You're using "hurting someone" and consequences interchangeably when they don't mean the same thing. What I said is that these are the arguments that both botters and cheaters use to justify their cheating. Whether there is a consequence is irrelevant to this discussion (it has, after all, been discussed many many times in other botting threads); I'm making the point here that these two situations are connected. The same attitude of looser ethics gives rise to people who think that both cheating and botting are justified on that count.

 

2. Your rape analogy is getting old and doesn't become any more true no matter how many times you repeat it. It's like flogging a dead horse. People are going to notice that it simply can't rise up and be ridden again, no matter how many times you hit it.

[Tact]

 

Uh what? If I don't think cheating is right in RS, I can't separate reality from fiction??? OK.

 

Gooday to you too, ma'am.

 

Nope.

 

OP is using examples like cheating on a test = cheating on a game. One is reality, the other is fiction. He says who you are in reality influences your morals in a fictional world and an encounter with botting can influence your personal morals, thereby influencing your reality with likely negative results. I.e. you end up botting because you don't see it as bad anymore. He concludes from that if you are exposed for too long to an evil in a game, there is a higher chance, just a chance, that you will do something evil in reality. I don't think so. It's like blaming murders on violent video games.

 

OP also cannot seem to grasp that you in reality != you in a videogame. Like I said before, there's an RPG in that MMORPG.

 

I don't agree with his ideas unless you're deluded and mixing up reality with fiction and as a result thinking it's serious business. It's not. It's just a game. Cheating on a test is one thing. Cheating in a game is another. One is a horrible life-ruining decision, the other is for entertainment. The first is serious with devastating consequences. The second is irrelevant and insignificant. They are not the same. This is my perspective.

And you, ma'am, cannot seem to grasp my actual point, so I'll put make sure to spell it out clearly this time.

 

I never stated that botting in a game and cheating on a test are the same thing.

 

When I said is that they are justified using the same set of arguments.

 

Yes, there are differing consequences for both actions. I recognize this.

 

However, there is a loosening of ethical standards in the real world that can also be seen in why people bot on Runescape.

[BioIce]

 

However, there is a loosening of ethical standards in the real world that can also be seen in why people bot on Runescape.

 

Thanks for being blunt. That right there is my problem in your harangue. American society was mentioned, yes? The one still entrenched in Puritan values? The same society that has folk in it blaming their own guns for being the cause of crimes, yes? And violent video games?

 

In that statement, you are comparing/applying the morals revolving around a society grounded on real consequences to the morals revolving around a video game made to pass the time, and I tell you, sir, that does not compute. Because one is real. The other is fiction.

 

Instead I'd like you to ask yourself this: why are bots so rampant in Runescape when other games have come up with working/tolerable solutions of their own, or are in the process of addressing the problem of why people bot?

[Blutters]

Instead I'd like you to ask yourself this: why are bots so rampant in Runescape when other games have come up with working/tolerable solutions of their own, or are in the process of addressing the problem of why people bot?

At least on this particular point, I would like to make you aware that you two are not at odds. Because RuneScape's grinding problem is relatively worse, there is more incentive to cheat to get ahead.

However, I believe the OP is saying that this mere fact is unrelated to a perceived weakening of moral values while you are trying to get away with saying that it is the entire reason people cheat.

 

Not directed at you,

I think people need to accept that you can't completely separate yourself. Playing the game you are using the same body and mind that you live your life with. Hopefully one remains aware through the entire course of playtime that RS is a game. However, not everyone playing can be held to the same standards that people here have of themselves. I would say in fact that most people don't play RS as a RPG. I don't even know why I need to say that, it's pretty obvious.

 

 

I never stated that botting in a game and cheating on a test are the same thing.

You did on your first post.

 

and since your next post will probably proclaim that they are the same again...

 

Besides the fact that one demonstrates your knowledge of a topic and can be used towards something REAL and the other shows how long you can do the same thing over and over again and is only there for e-peen and *GASP* entertainment.

 

Seriously im loving this thread. Sometimes this forum gets slow and then trolls like this come and spice things up :thumbup:

I don't even know what troll means anymore thanks to increasingly flagrant use.

[BioIce]

Ive gotta admit OP made one of the lulziest troll posts ever. My favorite part was where he said botting in rs means you have no morals irl.

 

Reeks of the same [bleep]s that say atheists dont have morals either

 

Hasn't derailed into name-calling yet. When OP posts a trollface, then you can surely claim it is.

 

Carry on.

[Youmu]

My reaction to this entire thread:

 

 

Seriously, is it so hard to understand that although bots are against the rules, you shouldn't make someone not play that way? If someone wishes to bot and/or refuses to play the normal way, let them be. It's no use forcing our opinions on said botters. The same goes for the other way around.

 

How someone wants to play a game has absolutely no bearing on real life morals. It's just a game, goddammit. You're not breaking a country's law from botting, are you? (RWT is questionable, though.)

[Vex]

I did have a post to clarify my points and rebut yours but my auto-shutdown kicked in and it's gone now i'm mad.

 

The microwave analogy was a reference to the attitude of being lazy and attitude toward automation & cheating to make life easier. Ofc it's got nothing to do with whether using a microwave is immoral it's to do with whether cheating to get something done quicker IS or isn't ethical. So it wasn't completely left wing although probably not clarified properly in relation to whether automation is moral/immoral and not cooking an egg.

 

I'm also arguing that botting or automating is a process of saving time. The process does transcend between both worlds or scenarios. However the morality of doing so is vastly different between the 2 so does 1 decision have an impact on the other towards shaping your attitude toward automation?

 

Whether saving time is immoral is obviously up for interpretation assuming the moral choice (not the rule that Jagex specifies) that led you to this conclusion transcends both scenarios. If you personally see it as saving time, then morally, it's not cheating. Cheating on a test does not save you time, it only helps you further yourself in a competition so the circumstance and justification used to approach this are not one in the same.

 

 

 

As for their being a loosening of ethical standards. From mankinds founding ethics (be it the 10 commandments or whatever) society has evolved and societies morals have evolved. There is nothing standard about moral standards. Only a comparison of what came before. If you believe that people were less likely to "cheat" in the past and they only do so now because societies attitude toward cheating is loosening, then I believe that's wrong.

 

Societies stance on cheating is becoming a lot firmer.

If you take sport, which is perceived as a physical game not a virtual one. Look at the drugs testing and video technology used now. The fines & bans are getting larger to set moral examples to those who watch or participate in the game. There is a much greater attitude and emphasis on fair play and clean participation as the consequences have increased to coincide with the rewards increasing (and thus the increase of risk which is used as a deterrent).

 

Anyway i've lost interest in this topic now as each time you post your original point apparently becomes more and more niche and changes.

[Obtaurian]

Still waiting for OP to explain why we have to argue within his parameters of morality. And I'd say I'm still waiting for him to actually prove anything, but that's a lost cause. At least he can entertain me with the former.

[Peregrine]

Still waiting for OP to explain why we have to argue within his parameters of morality. And I'd say I'm still waiting for him to actually prove anything, but that's a lost cause. At least he can entertain me with the former.

 

Argue within his parameters for the sake of the discussion. Logically, he should win the argument because his argument is correct according to a worldview based on absolute morality assigned by authority, which is the worldview he is holding.

 

And he wins the argument. So what? He is limiting it to his own absolutist definition of morality. It's an argument he has been predispositioned to win. However, his argument does not stand much ground in a scenario in which relativistic morals are applied. Since he has won his argument, present your new terms, move on to the next tangent of this discussion, and see if he will argue with you then. Until you can get him to agree to debate on relativistic (or non-absolute-morals-decided-by-authority) terms, you guys will go in more circles than the 100+ page long Creation vs. Evolution threads between creationists and athiests who just don't get how to debate.

 

What is more interesting (but not relevant to Runescape) is discussing the effects of authority superseding other authorities in a contradictary motion, according to an absolute morality decided by authority worldview.

 

Also, if morality is absolute according to authority, and the authority is replaced with a newer authority that eradicates the old law, by which morality should we uphold to? If we obey the old law, we are immoral according to the new law. If we obey the new law, the old law's morality was not absolute. This scenario, when thought through, provokes the idea that an absolutist morality governed by authority is only reliant if authority is either constant, or changing authority holds constant morality.

 

-

I probably should have posted this in Off Topic, and at a time other than 12:51AM.

-

Honestly, stop calling him a troll. Whether he is or is not does not matter. If he is trying to be troublesome and cause misdirection and communication, argue on his terms. Let him win. Then move on, and see if he actually wants to participate in a relativistic discussion. While they may be funny, the amount of red herrings, strawmen, and extrapolations on this thread is sickening. Debate in a legitimate way.

 

1. Establish what is being debated
   
2. Understand each other's worldviews and stick to a single definition at a time
   
3. Debate
   
4. Acknowledge good points, bad points and topic wins or losses in a respectful and logical manner
   

 

-

Eh, this post seems a little harsh, and it wasn't directed only at you, Obt. Your post just gave a good opportunity to make this reply. This post is directed at everyone in this thread. I've enjoyed reading (and contributing in my head) so far, however the circular, back-and-forth arguments of this thread are provoking me to try and get everyone on the same terms.

 

-

And don't call out his logical fallacies if you guys are commiting the same ones. Moreover, don't commit a logical fallacy (mainly, a red herring) while calling out his logical fallacies.

[Youmu]

I probably should have posted this in Off Topic, and at a time other than 12:51AM.

-

Honestly, stop calling him a troll. Whether he is or is not does not matter. If he is trying to be troublesome and cause misdirection and communication, argue on his terms. Let him win. Then move on, and see if he actually wants to participate in a relativistic discussion. While they may be funny, the amount of red herrings, strawmen, and extrapolations on this thread is sickening. Debate in a legitimate way.

 

1. Establish what is being debated
   
2. Understand each other's worldviews and stick to a single definition at a time
   
3. Debate
   
4. Acknowledge good points, bad points and topic wins or losses in a respectful and logical manner
   

 

-

Eh, this post seems a little harsh, and it wasn't directed only at you, Obt. Your post just gave a good opportunity to make this reply. This post is directed at everyone in this thread. I've enjoyed reading (and contributing in my head) so far, however the circular, back-and-forth arguments of this thread are provoking me to try and get everyone on the same terms.

 

-

And don't call out his logical fallacies if you guys are commiting the same ones. Moreover, don't commit a logical fallacy (mainly, a red herring) while calling out his logical fallacies.

Agreed with this. Honestly, what happened to debating without having to personally attack each other all the freaking time? :mellow:

[Necromagus]

I really don't think this thread can be salvaged. A general warning to everybody in this thread who got sucked in to the flaming and name calling, and a lock to put this thread out of its misery.

 

-Necromagus, Tip.It Mod.