Planetarion Forums - A request to angels HC

Kjeldoran · 13 Oct 2006, 14:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chika

sigh. seems like you are forcing it m8. There isn't much I can say to retort, as you have not done anything stupid in PA for a while.

That would be a first

bwtmc · 13 Oct 2006, 14:37

Wow, Chika used the word 'retort'

Alki · 13 Oct 2006, 14:54

wow KJ is posting alot more! also Alki is in my name so fu

Kjeldoran · 13 Oct 2006, 15:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alki

wow KJ is posting alot more!

Well ... for 0 to some is indeed 'alot more'

Rumad · 18 Oct 2006, 07:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Judge

Says it all really, the biggest known cheat in the history of Planetarion is his friend.

Does elviz agree with this I wonder ?

Do you even know Elviz or Killmark?

I hate people who really have no clue and still comment.

You judge people on the few stories you hear and then assume the worst is true. You may not have a lot to judge these people on,but try to remember like all internet sources not everything on these boards are correct or true.

JonnyBGood · 18 Oct 2006, 08:18

I'm not sure exactly what's going on in this thread but are you trying to argue that killmark slipped and fell and accidentally created a bot army two rounds in a row? You might be saying something slightly more sensible though.

Tietäjä · 18 Oct 2006, 08:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I'm not sure exactly what's going on in this thread but are you trying to argue that killmark slipped and fell and accidentally created a bot army two rounds in a row? You might be saying something slightly more sensible though.

There's definately more to it, but that probably doesn't make what was done much better, but things can change, can't they?

I bet Elviz didn't slip and fall either. Last round, not r2, when I was sixteen.

bwtmc · 18 Oct 2006, 08:53

The old 'My cheat's better than your cheat' argument.

lokken · 18 Oct 2006, 10:32

People dislike them, not because they are or aren't nice people, it's because at a time when cheating wasn't meant to be part of the game and people had got to grips with it, they both cheated in a way which affected the top rankings on more than one occaision.

I couldn't give a toss whether either are nice people or not, the fact is they both gave a negative contribution to the game.

Kjeldoran · 18 Oct 2006, 11:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by lokken

I couldn't give a toss whether either are nice people or not, the fact is they both gave a negative contribution to the game.

Very true.

Then again, Account sharing doesn't make you any better then creating 500 bots. both is considered cheating and there isn't a greater or lesser wrong in cheating.
And who on these boards can honnestly say he has never so far in this game given his logon details to someone else or vica versa etc mmm?
I reckon in r1-3 it was common behavior really.

Phil^ · 18 Oct 2006, 11:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

And who on these boards can honnestly say he has never so far in this game given his logon details to someone else or vica versa etc mmm?

I can. Such people with a spotless record do exist.

Kjeldoran · 18 Oct 2006, 11:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil^

I can. Such people with a spotless record do exist.

Well, I'm sure they exist but I doubt it will be many.

Then again, you did other fkups so ... you're not spotless

JonnyBGood · 18 Oct 2006, 12:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tietäjä

There's definately more to it, but that probably doesn't make what was done much better, but things can change, can't they?

I bet Elviz didn't slip and fall either. Last round, not r2, when I was sixteen.

Sure, but rumad seemed to be implying that either elviz's or killmark's past records were actually different to the commonly accepted viewpoint.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Very true.

Then again, Account sharing doesn't make you any better then creating 500 bots. both is considered cheating and there isn't a greater or lesser wrong in cheating.
And who on these boards can honnestly say he has never so far in this game given his logon details to someone else or vica versa etc mmm?
I reckon in r1-3 it was common behavior really.

To be honest creating 500 bots is much worse than account sharing. Much like killing 500 people is worse than killing one (and no for the love of god I'm not comparing the two). It really depends on what you actually do. Both of them are rules but they were introduced for the reason of making the game fairer. So if I created 500 bots but all they did was initiate roids and launch attacks at random and build ships and I didn't use them as support and didn't farm them it would be better than if I account-shared with my top-ranked friend and between us guaranteed 24 hour online coverage for both our accounts. Equally if I logged in to my friend's account just to check the details of a birthday present he asked me to get for his girlfriend as he was stuck in work and they were in his pa journal it'd be far better than if I created 500 planets and launched gal raids with them every night taking the choice targets for my main planet. Logically we can then see that using 500 planets in the "worst" way possible is worse than using 2 planets in the "worst" way possible. For while both are against the rules the extent of the crime, if you will, still differs.

Gate · 18 Oct 2006, 14:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

And who on these boards can honnestly say he has never so far in this game given his logon details to someone else or vica versa etc mmm?

I haven't .o/

qebab · 18 Oct 2006, 15:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gate

I haven't .o/

Me neither. I only played this game since round 12, though.

Mek · 18 Oct 2006, 15:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gate

I haven't .o/

thats a lie gate :P you gave me them in round 13 to recall an attack for you so your fleet didnt get wtfpwned

15:6 ftw :P

jerome · 18 Oct 2006, 16:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Account sharing doesn't make you any better then creating 500 bots. both is considered cheating and there isn't a greater or lesser wrong in cheating.

?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!

Kjeldoran · 19 Oct 2006, 10:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by jerome

?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!

Yes, I'm sure you've mastered the skill of reading ...
As usual a pointless reply from you.

To JBG: If you murder 1 person or 500 persons, in the end you're guilty of murder. The quantity only decides the consequences.

It's like speeding ... if I drive 30mph or 100mph too fast, in the end I'm driving too fast and my penalty will depend on the speed.

JGB, mind you that I'm NOT discussing the moral question here. This is just a game, we're not talking about life threatening situations, we're also not talking about any serious manipulation on the life of a human being (worst case is that the user stops playing PA).

Both Killmark as Elviz as anyone who account shared, broke the rules. EACH should be punished. The punishment itself depends on the severity of the act.

Heartless · 19 Oct 2006, 11:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Yes, I'm sure you've mastered the skill of reading ...
As usual a pointless reply from you.

To JBG: If you murder 1 person or 500 persons, in the end you're guilty of murder. The quantity only decides the consequences.

It's like speeding ... if I drive 30mph or 100mph too fast, in the end I'm driving too fast and my penalty will depend on the speed.

JGB, mind you that I'm NOT discussing the moral question here. This is just a game, we're not talking about life threatening situations, we're also not talking about any serious manipulation on the life of a human being (worst case is that the user stops playing PA).

Both Killmark as Elviz as anyone who account shared, broke the rules. EACH should be punished. The punishment itself depends on the severity of the act.

But isn't the punishment itself the indicator of which crime is worse than another one?

jerome · 19 Oct 2006, 11:31

you said the exact opposite in the post i quoted ... or are you just being an idiot? surely if the punishment depends on the severity of the crime then YES, there is a greater and lesser wrong in cheating, as in, a small scale account sharing is not as BAD (not a defence, but more like saying y is worse than x here) as building a huge bot army.

Stoom · 19 Oct 2006, 11:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Yes, I'm sure you've mastered the skill of reading ...
As usual a pointless reply from you.

To JBG: If you murder 1 person or 500 persons, in the end you're guilty of murder. The quantity only decides the consequences.

It's like speeding ... if I drive 30mph or 100mph too fast, in the end I'm driving too fast and my penalty will depend on the speed.

JGB, mind you that I'm NOT discussing the moral question here. This is just a game, we're not talking about life threatening situations, we're also not talking about any serious manipulation on the life of a human being (worst case is that the user stops playing PA).

Both Killmark as Elviz as anyone who account shared, broke the rules. EACH should be punished. The punishment itself depends on the severity of the act.

Now you just agreed with JBG and jer! Consequences depend on the severity of the act, hence the one crime is worse then the other!

Kjeldoran · 19 Oct 2006, 11:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heartless

But isn't the punishment itself the indicator of which crime is worse than another one?

Is it? Each person would decide what he finds is the proper punishment. It's a moral question and varies from person to person.

You might e.g. find speeding very bad, I might think it's not so bad. Therefor we both would sentence a different punishment. Hence in your case it would appear that his crime was worse then when I would've punished him.

This obviously applies to real life issues ... PA is a game. In the context of a game, cheating is probably the worst possible 'crime' and everyone would punish a cheater differently, hence the punishment imo isn't a global indicator, it's a personal issue.

Kjeldoran · 19 Oct 2006, 11:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stoom

Now you just agreed with JBG and jer! Consequences depend on the severity of the act, hence the one crime is worse then the other!

To both Jer as Stoom:

No, consequences depend on what YOU/the judge thinks and values the severity of your crime. Who are you, or any person, to say which crime should be worse then another?

That's the point of my post. YOU might feel x is worse then y ... it doesn't mean that anyone else does, so the punishment hardly represents what everyone thinks. It represents what the PUNISHER thinks.

Anway Jer, I don't see why I'd bother replying to your post because every single one of them is like a 'conversation killer' for several reasons.
It's asif you're trying to not understand what I write ... maybe if you put effort into it, you might see where I'm going.

rgds Kj

jerome · 19 Oct 2006, 11:58

both of my last replies to you were questions so how were they conversation killers

Kjeldoran · 19 Oct 2006, 12:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by jerome

both of my last replies to you were questions so how were they conversation killers

Well yes, saying "you said this or else you're an idiot" does encourage me to continue having a mature conversation with you ...

Also a line containing an abusive amount of '?' and '!' ALSO encourages me to do my best etc ...

Mind you with conversation, I mean a mature discussion/arguement.

Zirikk · 19 Oct 2006, 12:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

To both Jer as Stoom:

No, consequences depend on what YOU/the judge thinks and values the severity of your crime. Who are you, or any person, to say which crime should be worse then another?

That's the point of my post. YOU might feel x is worse then y ... it doesn't mean that anyone else does, so the punishment hardly represents what everyone thinks. It represents what the PUNISHER thinks.

Anway Jer, I don't see why I'd bother replying to your post because every single one of them is like a 'conversation killer' for several reasons.
It's asif you're trying to not understand what I write ... maybe if you put effort into it, you might see where I'm going.

rgds Kj

There is no right or wrong. Only a public opinion.
And alot of other opinions Ofc.
Public opinion seems to be that creating 500 bots is worse than account sharing.

JonnyBGood · 19 Oct 2006, 13:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

To both Jer as Stoom:

No, consequences depend on what YOU/the judge thinks and values the severity of your crime. Who are you, or any person, to say which crime should be worse then another?

That's the point of my post. YOU might feel x is worse then y ... it doesn't mean that anyone else does, so the punishment hardly represents what everyone thinks. It represents what the PUNISHER thinks.

That's silly, you can use that logic to claim cheating isn't a crime making this entire conversation and line of reasoning irrelevant. However if you accept the premise (cheating is wrong) and logic (doing something bad often is worse than doing it once) you come to our conclusion (cheating to a greater extent is worse than cheating to a lesser extent). This is descriptive ethics instead of prescriptive ethics! If you don't accept the premise I'm not exactly sure what you're doing in both this thread and this game.