swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,345
|
Post by swamp on Dec 5, 2015 20:23:01 GMT -5
I don't really seperate moral and ethical so i really don't understand the question. He's just trying to do some semantic acrobatics so he can say that what he did wasn't stealing. And yeah, it was stealing - just FYI. The fact that you were able to make a hack to get you to manipulate the prices is IMO unethical. And again, still theft. You ou havked the program to get what you wanted at less than what everyone else was charged. Try to justify it all you want but it IS stealing.
|
|
resolution
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:09:56 GMT -5
Posts: 7,001
Mini-Profile Name Color: 305b2b
|
Post by resolution on Dec 5, 2015 21:29:54 GMT -5
That kind of cheating is the lowest form of game play. It is almost universally despised by gamers. It has totally changed my view of him.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Dec 5, 2015 21:50:32 GMT -5
That kind of cheating is the lowest form of game play. It is almost universally despised by gamers. It has totally changed my view of him. Yep. The world of the game is like a little society. What was done was both immoral and unethical. The negative effects were felt by those the player interacted with as well as the whole of the game society and the owners/developers of the game. Skipping along the line between ethics and morals doesn't excuse the breach of either.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 5, 2015 21:59:05 GMT -5
Forcing personal analysis and will on another isn't something that should be done lightly, IMO, same as how private citizens ideally shouldn't smash each other over the head because one party in disagreement with the other analyzes that they know best what should happen. This point came up during my debate with my friend: is the unethical component my assuming that my cost/benefit assessment is accurate for both myself and the counterparty? This is a reasonable question, but it's unfortunately also a paradox. Obviously I felt at the time that my assessment was fair, especially since my conclusions held even when allowing for a generous margin of error. But of course the only way to determine if my assessment was fair was to conduct a metaanalysis of whether my initial analysis was sound, and so on and so forth. Ultimately, if we're going to rely on reason, we have to have faith in our reasoning abilities. This is the principle difference between ethics and Biblical morality. The Bible tells us vis a vis good and evil (paraphrasing) "don't lean on your own reasoning because mankind is fundamentally unequipped for the task". Ethics, by contrast, presumes that man is fundamentally capable of reasoning out good and evil, and moreover that he is capable of judging whether he's being reasonable in assessing the soundness of his reasoning. The bottom line is that I felt I was being fair, I found my assessment reasonable, and I found my self-assessment of how reasonable I was being to be reasonable. That's the best one can do in an ethical framework. Even in pure PVE games there is an element of competition for status and prestige among players. Hacking the game for an unfair advantage places other players in a lower position by comparison and damages their game play. This game had no such ranking system. Even if it had, what you're criticizing here is the ethics of cheating, not the ethics of stealing. Suppose for sake of argument that I could guarantee you that my exploiting the loophole didn't negatively impact any other player's experience. The only issue was the theft. Is it still unethical, or would it be ethical only if I could make this guarantee? He's just trying to do some semantic acrobatics so he can say that what he did wasn't stealing. Absolutely not. I readily acknowledge that what I was doing was stealing and that it was immoral, which is why I stopped doing it. I just don't think it was unethical. Theft, whatever its manifestations and permutations, is always wrong. It is really quite simple...you have something that someone else worked for and acquired, and you took a short-cut. That's not an ethical argument. An ethical argument derives from reason. "It is really quite simple" doesn't cut it. Typically one makes an ethical argument by demonstrating that the action fails to satisfy some ethical heuristic. For example, Kant's categorical imperative, where we ask "What would the result be if everybody did this?" I did ask that question, and my reasonable conclusion at the time was that the world would be a better place for both players and the game developer if everybody had done precisely as I had done. Another example of an ethical heuristic is the law of reciprocity, where we ask "Am I doing unto others as I would have them do unto me?" Here too I came to the conclusion that my actions were ethical because my reasonable answer was "Yes". Specifically, I reached the conclusion that if I was the game developer discovering Virgil's exploit a year after the fact and I was given the option to go back in time and patch the vulnerability, I wouldn't do it. Why not? Because if I did, when I traveled back into the future, the only predictable difference would be that the balance in my bank account would be $180.00 lower. Instead, I can use that $180.00 to buy me a big ol' steak. Or maybe pay to attend a workshop on how to price my games in a halfway sane manner.
|
|
resolution
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:09:56 GMT -5
Posts: 7,001
Mini-Profile Name Color: 305b2b
|
Post by resolution on Dec 5, 2015 21:59:26 GMT -5
I am having a hard time getting over this because he takes a position of moral superiority on so many issues. It's not like he needed to steal for survival or because his kids were hungry. It was strictly for an advantage over other players that would improve his status in the game. Anyone with $18,000 worth of advantages in the game would be so superior over everyone else that tried to achieve similar results.
|
|
Artemis Windsong
Senior Associate
The love in me salutes the love in you. M. Williamson
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 19:32:12 GMT -5
Posts: 12,320
Today's Mood: Twinkling
Location: Wishing Star
Favorite Drink: Fresh, clean cold bottled water.
|
Post by Artemis Windsong on Dec 5, 2015 22:00:21 GMT -5
Theft of anything denies the owner. Theft covers a broad spectrum.
Unethical, immoral. It starts tiny with the stolen kiss or paper clip and builds to cyber crime.
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,365
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Dec 5, 2015 22:01:14 GMT -5
Is it ethical to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family? What if your family was an entire world and you need to give mine virtual gold for them do they could build a town. I don't see any difference.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 10,972
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Dec 5, 2015 22:04:57 GMT -5
Is it ethical to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family? What if your family was an entire world and you need to give mine virtual gold for them do they could build a town. I don't see any difference. Lmao, you are always doing the most on these YMAM threads.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 5, 2015 22:07:31 GMT -5
That kind of cheating is the lowest form of game play. It is almost universally despised by gamers. It has totally changed my view of him. This was almost 13 years ago now, when I was a young punk in university, and I stopped. You can rage at me for ruining people's lives by cheating at a PVE game in my wild days if you want to, but I'm pretty sure one or two others here have committed sins at least that bad in their wild days and I don't see you raging on them. ETA: For the third time, I am not making a moral argument here. Stealing is wrong. Period. That's the moral argument. If you don't know what the difference between a moral argument and an ethical argument is (and it would seem that many posters here don't), then please disregard what I'm saying. I am not trying to argue that what I did was right.
|
|
Artemis Windsong
Senior Associate
The love in me salutes the love in you. M. Williamson
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 19:32:12 GMT -5
Posts: 12,320
Today's Mood: Twinkling
Location: Wishing Star
Favorite Drink: Fresh, clean cold bottled water.
|
Post by Artemis Windsong on Dec 5, 2015 22:08:48 GMT -5
Is it ethical to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family? What if your family was an entire world and you need to give mine virtual gold for them do they could build a town. I don't see any difference. In our town, ask a church if they need food rather than steal. The church can direct them to the closest food pantry. Many ask no questions on who is requesting the food.
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,365
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Dec 5, 2015 22:11:20 GMT -5
Is it ethical to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family? What if your family was an entire world and you need to give mine virtual gold for them do they could build a town. I don't see any difference. In our town, ask a church if they need food rather than steal. The church can direct them to the closest food pantry. Many ask no questions on who is requesting the food. And if that is not an option? This world is not black and white. There are Mexicans too
|
|
resolution
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:09:56 GMT -5
Posts: 7,001
Mini-Profile Name Color: 305b2b
|
Post by resolution on Dec 5, 2015 22:17:12 GMT -5
That kind of cheating is the lowest form of game play. It is almost universally despised by gamers. It has totally changed my view of him. This was almost 13 years ago now, when I was a young punk in university, and I stopped. You can rage at me for ruining people's lives by cheating at a PVE game in my wild days if you want to, but I'm pretty sure one or two others here have committed sins at least that bad in their wild days and I don't see you raging on them. ETA: For the third time, I am not making a moral argument here. Stealing is wrong. Period. That's the moral argument. If you don't know what the difference between a moral argument and an ethical argument is (and it would seem that many posters here don't), then please disregard what I'm saying. I am not trying to argue that what I did was right. If it is any consolation, I was raging on she who must not be named for her Medicaid fraud. When did I claim you ever ruined any lives?
For the ethical argument, you may have cost that company a lot of revenue when other players quit in disgust.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,345
|
Post by swamp on Dec 5, 2015 22:43:34 GMT -5
You were not stealing for the greater good of humanity, or to save someone, or for another noble cause. You were stealing to give yourself an advantage.
Rationalize all you want. It was a shitty thing to do and both immoral and unethical.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Dec 5, 2015 22:57:52 GMT -5
I am pretty easily able to see Virgil's side on this, and I (given his stipulations) pretty much agree with it. Remember: 1. There is no damage to other players since they are not in competition. 2. It costs the developer basically zero for him to play. 3. He has already stipulated that it is immoral.
His choice is to play, and pay something, or to not play, and pay nothing. Anything he pays is profit to the developer. It may not be as much as the developer thinks he should get (which was probably a WAG anyway) but it is more than he would receive otherwise. In that sense the developer is being acknowledged as providing a valuable service, just at a lower level of value. He is still better off than if Virgil did not play. To exploit any such hack to play for free cannot be justified ethically, however. That is a more direct theft, in that the developer's work is being appropriated without any compensation.
The analogy does not apply to progressive taxation mentioned earlier. First, it fails the "damage to others" component of the comparison. It also likely fails the marginal cost of participation component as well. But as a strictly reason-based question of, "Is the developer better off by Virgil's participation?" the answer seems to be yes.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 23:50:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2015 22:58:31 GMT -5
There is no difference between them. eth·i·cal. [ˈeTHək(ə)l] ADJECTIVE 1.of or relating to moral principles or the branch of knowledge dealing with these: "ethical issues in nursing" · [more] synonyms: moral · social · behavioral
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 23:50:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2015 23:06:47 GMT -5
I am pretty easily able to see Virgil's side on this, and I (given his stipulations) pretty much agree with it. Remember: 1. There is no damage to other players since they are not in competition. 2. It costs the developer basically zero for him to play. 3. He has already stipulated that it is immoral.
His choice is to play, and pay something, or to not play, and pay nothing. Anything he pays is profit to the developer. It may not be as much as the developer thinks he should get (which was probably a WAG anyway) but it is more than he would receive otherwise. In that sense the developer is being acknowledged as providing a valuable service, just at a lower level of value. He is still better off than if Virgil did not play. To exploit any such hack to play for free cannot be justified ethically, however. That is a more direct theft, in that the developer's work is being appropriated without any compensation.
The analogy does not apply to progressive taxation mentioned earlier. First, it fails the "damage to others" component of the comparison. It also likely fails the marginal cost of participation component as well. But as a strictly reason-based question of, "Is the developer better off by Virgil's participation?" the answer seems to be yes. The developer did not agree to the lower price that Virgil imposed on him. Virgil does not have the right to make that choice for him. The fact that this type of thing happens often does not make it any more ethical. The fact that the government does it to businesses doesn't excuse it either. As a society we have given our government the right to determine when people are being gouged for something. No one has given Virgil that authority.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 23:50:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2015 23:10:55 GMT -5
No he's not. Virgil has taken control of the developer's property and usurped his power of choice with his product. Giving him 10 cents on the dollar for the privilege of being screwed over does not make him better off.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Dec 5, 2015 23:12:02 GMT -5
We have given the government the right to determine when we are being gouged? Where is that in the Constitution?
|
|
resolution
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:09:56 GMT -5
Posts: 7,001
Mini-Profile Name Color: 305b2b
|
Post by resolution on Dec 5, 2015 23:13:27 GMT -5
I can't agree with stipulation 1 that there is no damage to other players. Even in cooperative games there is always an element of competition where the players compare achievements to one another.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Dec 5, 2015 23:30:51 GMT -5
No he's not. Virgil has taken control of the developer's property and usurped his power of choice with his product. Giving him 10 cents on the dollar for the privilege of being screwed over does not make him better off. The developer knows that his game-based income for the month is, say, $2010. Does he know that without Virgil's participation it would only be $2000? No. If he did know, would he prefer the check for $2010 or the check for $2000? Unless he's an idiot he wants the bigger check. In fact, it is in his best interests for everyone who is unwilling to pay the asked rate to find Virgil's hack. They may be willing to pay 50%, or 25%, or whatever, but it all still increases the developer's revenue over the zero he would have gotten from them. And it costs him nothing. How is that being screwed over? Now, if Virgil had taken it upon himself to spread knowledge of that hack, so that everyone was able to not pay, then it would be unethical.
And again, the question at issue is not, "Is it right?" It is instead, "Can it be justified?" You compensate the developer to a greater extent than he would have been otherwise. Yes, you can justify it that way.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Dec 5, 2015 23:35:05 GMT -5
I can't agree with stipulation 1 that there is no damage to other players. Even in cooperative games there is always an element of competition where the players compare achievements to one another. But there is no damage. They would presumably not pay anything they did not want to pay so are out nothing monetarily. And if they see someone at a higher level, all it does is focus their attention on whether paying more is something they really want to do or not. But either way, IF they pay more to play at a higher level it is because they chose to do so. In other words, it was worth it to them to do so even at the asked rate.
I am not a gamer, but I would be absolutely shocked if there are not many people in just about every game who are given things to get ahead, in the hope that many more people will pay a lot to try to catch up to them.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 23:50:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2015 23:37:18 GMT -5
No he's not. Virgil has taken control of the developer's property and usurped his power of choice with his product. Giving him 10 cents on the dollar for the privilege of being screwed over does not make him better off. The developer knows that his game-based income for the month is, say, $2010. Does he know that without Virgil's participation it would only be $2000? No. If he did know, would he prefer the check for $2010 or the check for $2000? Unless he's an idiot he wants the bigger check. In fact, it is in his best interests for everyone who is unwilling to pay the asked rate to find Virgil's hack. They may be willing to pay 50%, or 25%, or whatever, but it all still increases the developer's revenue over the zero he would have gotten from them. And it costs him nothing. How is that being screwed over? Now, if Virgil had taken it upon himself to spread knowledge of that hack, so that everyone was able to not pay, then it would be unethical.
And again, the question at issue is not, "Is it right?" It is instead, "Can it be justified?" You compensate the developer to a greater extent than he would have been otherwise. Yes, you can justify it that way.
It is not you or Virgil's place to decide if the developer would want the $10 or not. There are any number of reasons the developer would say pay the full amount or don't play at all. You can't justify it because it is not your decision to make.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 23:50:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2015 23:39:44 GMT -5
I can't agree with stipulation 1 that there is no damage to other players. Even in cooperative games there is always an element of competition where the players compare achievements to one another. But there is no damage. They would presumably not pay anything they did not want to pay so are out nothing monetarily. And if they see someone at a higher level, all it does is focus their attention on whether paying more is something they really want to do or not. But either way, IF they pay more to play at a higher level it is because they chose to do so. In other words, it was worth it to them to do so even at the asked rate.
I am not a gamer, but I would be absolutely shocked if there are not many people in just about every game who are given things to get ahead, in the hope that many more people will pay a lot to try to catch up to them.
And there are a lot of people that will pay a premium price for something just to have the exclusivity of it. Virgil hacking in to play cheaply makes the game lose that value to them. All these judgements you guys are making about who is put out and who isn't are not your decisions to make. The very act of making these decisions for other people harms them.
|
|
Ryan
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 16, 2014 13:40:36 GMT -5
Posts: 2,202
|
Post by Ryan on Dec 5, 2015 23:48:40 GMT -5
If you're stealing to put food on the table, I'll give you a pass. Stealing to play a video game, ehhhhhhh.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Dec 6, 2015 5:23:02 GMT -5
We're all paying more because of shoplifters. There are many more examples.
|
|
resolution
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:09:56 GMT -5
Posts: 7,001
Mini-Profile Name Color: 305b2b
|
Post by resolution on Dec 6, 2015 6:40:33 GMT -5
I can't agree with stipulation 1 that there is no damage to other players. Even in cooperative games there is always an element of competition where the players compare achievements to one another. But there is no damage. They would presumably not pay anything they did not want to pay so are out nothing monetarily. And if they see someone at a higher level, all it does is focus their attention on whether paying more is something they really want to do or not. But either way, IF they pay more to play at a higher level it is because they chose to do so. In other words, it was worth it to them to do so even at the asked rate.
I am not a gamer, but I would be absolutely shocked if there are not many people in just about every game who are given things to get ahead, in the hope that many more people will pay a lot to try to catch up to them.
There is damage to other players' gaming experience because it makes their achievements in game less valued by comparison. Anyone that is trying to keep up with someone spending the equivalent of $18,000 in a game is going to fall short and either continue to play with less satisfaction or just give up and go play another game.
I haven't seen any statistics to quantify it monetarily, however it is measurable that large numbers of players quit games due to hacks and exploits. Some surveys have found that 1 in 5 gamers have quit a game due to cheats, and some games have had to cancel tournaments and are recognized as suffering major financial harm due to people leaving over cheating. Anti-cheat programming is a huge industry and consumes a lot of resources that could otherwise be used for better game development or profits for the developer.
www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwicibHbj8fJAhVGwiYKHf9CBoQQFghDMAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdiku.dk%2Fforskning%2FPublikationer%2Fspecialer%2F2011%2FCheating_in_video_games.pdf&usg=AFQjCNE5g6G9dLVj5Y9sLgLXyLzUdu4hYQ
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Dec 6, 2015 8:22:52 GMT -5
Theft of anything denies the owner. Theft covers a broad spectrum. Unethical, immoral. It starts tiny with the stolen kiss or paper clip and builds to cyber crime. A stolen kiss, truly unethical behavior.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Dec 6, 2015 8:33:06 GMT -5
The "ethic" of stealing is just one thing. You either do, or do not, and live with it. After we pass, it gets sorted out.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Dec 6, 2015 8:46:01 GMT -5
Are there degrees of stealing? If someone truly is starving and stole groceries to feed their child, we would look at that a bit differently. Picking up a pen from work and leaving it in your pocket is something people probably don't think that much about. But, breaking into someone's house and stealing their wallet is another thing.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Dec 6, 2015 9:41:29 GMT -5
Now that we have established our thoughts on the ethics of stealing, do you maintain the same level of ethics when it comes to telling lies?
|
|