Hacker News Reader

Comment by paulcole | Hacker News Reader

If your opponent is playing poorly, it’s unethical not to take advantage.

Hard disagree. Better games make affordances for players of differing skill level (like Go for example), but in games where this is not possible, the ethical calculation is more complex (although I would argue the ethical calculation isn't really relevant in a game, as the whole point of most games is about creating a safe place for the mutual exploration of systems).

Whether or not the specific examples constitutes cheating is up for negotiation by the participants.

> as the whole point of most games is about creating a safe place for the mutual exploration of systems

What?

Can you imagine saying to any reasonable person, “do you want to create a safe place for the mutual exploration of systems?” And having them reply, “oh yeah, I would like to play a game.”

I found it apt. Your attempted reductio ad absurdum assumes there's an injective mapping from activities to points-of-activity. This is clearly not true.

I've given this a little more thought after reading your comment. And I was wrong. The point of games is drama.

Drama in music comes from an anticipated causality from A->B and either the fulfillment or denial of that causality. Romantic-era music strives for maximum drama by injecting as many fulfillment/denial moments as possible, with denials that are stretched to the limit of the implicit rules of the cultural context / musical system.

Minimalist music does something entirely different, by first breaking the expectation of resolution, and then becoming the flame that we stare into; it begins within a known system and then subverts it through stasis.

Can you imagine saying to any reasonable person, "do you want to skip all the boring parts and get to the final note?" Or, "yeah, ok, I don't want to see or even know what happens in the movie, just tell me what the final shot is."

In games, the drama of the "game part" is in exploring the edges of a system, with the added engagement of partial agency towards "resolution" (in a musical sense).

I still can't imagine any reasonable person thinking the "point" of a game is to win. Winning is the objective, not the point. Whether or not employing agency from outside the system is appropriate for a game is up for negotiation among the players, but without some level of adherence to an agreed system, it ceases to be a multiplayer game and becomes a game of solitaire where the rules are whatever the cheater decides.

I can appreciate that there is drama in that, and perhaps the drama of avoiding being caught is more satisfying than the drama of performing "the perfect game" for some people. In that situation, though, I think I'd still describe games as "a safe place for the mutual exploration of systems."

> I still can't imagine any reasonable person thinking the "point" of a game is to win. Winning is the objective, not the point.

After skimming your comment, I’ve decided you’re intentionally splitting hairs to create a difference between point and objective.

Ask yourself: What is the point of going to the grocery store? What is the objective of going to the grocery store?

I’d agree with “it’s fine to take advantage,” but “unethical not to”?

Would that line apply when playing your young child in a game?

Yeah, I assumed we were talking about crushing a toddler in Rock Paper Scissors. Glad you picked up on that.

The argument isn't against good/poor play; it's if this is cheating. You're essentially saying it's unethical not to cheat if you can get away with it, which is obviously untrue

It’s not cheating. Your opponent knows they’re supposed to keep their throw a secret as long as possible. Otherwise why not just say, “here comes rock” before they start? It’s the same as a pitcher tipping their pitches in baseball.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com