3 ms·

I'm genuinely interested in the reasoning behind this: > The honor system is fine for a fun game with friends, but not fine in anything "competitive". Is the

I'm genuinely interested in the reasoning behind this: > The honor system is fine for a fun game with friends, but not fine in anything "competitive". Is the honor system "not fine" in competitive situations because you have a deontological view that the only rules that matter are rules that are mechanistically enforceable, or is it not fine because you have a consequentialist view that competitive situations will usually devolve into something messy and unfair if all rules are not mechanistically enforceable? I see the logic and appeal of both lines of reasoning, but they're quite different and people might easily disagree (for different reasons) with each. See also my comment about ultimate frisbee, elsewhere in this discussion.

brianwawok 5y ago
As someone who has played semi-competitive games for a long time.. yes, the nature of man is to cheat ;) Not everyone, but enough. Rather than try to shape man, I would rather make a game "cheat proof".
- chmod775 5y ago
  > As someone who has played semi-competitive games for a long time.. yes, the nature of man is to cheat It is not. But it doesn't take many cheaters to ruin a game for everyone. In competitive online games, I'd estimate that less than 5% of all players in my games are behaving dishonorably in some way. And that is even though aimbots, AI assistants etc. are readily available to those who seek them out. If they weren't online games, the number would probably be even lower. In any case, those numbers would be far away from the point where you could make statements like "the nature of man is to cheat". That feels a bit like saying "in stories most people identify with villains". They obviously don't - most people don't want to be that kind of person. Though obviously some have given up on themselves.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  I can't remember the last time I played a game with someone who cheated. The nature of humans is to murder, steal, etc., but it's not really a risk when I'm playing chess. In other words, people have free will, they have a choice, to cheat or not.
a1369209993 5y ago
It's not fine because anyone who actually follows the honor system will lose. This is basically a variant of Hyrum's law and Goodhart/Campbell's law and can be seen in the slow decline of eg Bitcoin, the World Wide Web, capitalism, and democracy.

brianwawok 5y ago

As someone who has played semi-competitive games for a long time.. yes, the nature of man is to cheat ;) Not everyone, but enough. Rather than try to shape man, I would rather make a game "cheat proof".

chmod775 5y ago
> As someone who has played semi-competitive games for a long time.. yes, the nature of man is to cheat It is not. But it doesn't take many cheaters to ruin a game for everyone. In competitive online games, I'd estimate that less than 5% of all players in my games are behaving dishonorably in some way. And that is even though aimbots, AI assistants etc. are readily available to those who seek them out. If they weren't online games, the number would probably be even lower. In any case, those numbers would be far away from the point where you could make statements like "the nature of man is to cheat". That feels a bit like saying "in stories most people identify with villains". They obviously don't - most people don't want to be that kind of person. Though obviously some have given up on themselves.
wolverine876 5y ago
I can't remember the last time I played a game with someone who cheated. The nature of humans is to murder, steal, etc., but it's not really a risk when I'm playing chess. In other words, people have free will, they have a choice, to cheat or not.

a1369209993 5y ago

It's not fine because anyone who actually follows the honor system will lose. This is basically a variant of Hyrum's law and Goodhart/Campbell's law and can be seen in the slow decline of eg Bitcoin, the World Wide Web, capitalism, and democracy.