3 ms·

And murder is an exercise in bodily freedom. If my hands are tied so I can't murder people, I am not bodily free. Yes, you're correct, we shouldn't bind the han

And murder is an exercise in bodily freedom. If my hands are tied so I can't murder people, I am not bodily free. Yes, you're correct, we shouldn't bind the hands of people. No, we shouldn't be arguing in favor of murder. That's where you lost me. Instead of arguing for cheating in games or for the death of all multiplayer games, argue for something like server side anti-cheat and rally against games that include crapware instead of saying things like (paraphrasing) "all multiplayer games should die for my sake." Seek nuance or find a middle ground instead of grandstanding on absolutism like this, it hurts your (fundamentally very good!) point.

matheusmoreira 2y ago
Let's not compare video game cheats to murder. Let's avoid putting those two things in the same sentence. > argue for something like server side anti-cheat I have done that. Here's the direct quote from an earlier comment from me: > they better run their "anticheat" nonsense on their computers There is no inherent problem with server side anti-cheating measures. Their servers are their computers. I'm not gonna tell them what software they can or can't run on their machines. I just wish they'd extend me the exact same respect. Whether server side anti-cheating measures are effective is a completely separate issue. It's also completely irrelevant. The failure of server side anti-cheating software does not excuse their invasion of our computers to compensate. > rally against games that include crapware I do object to that as well. > Seek nuance or find a middle ground instead of grandstanding on absolutism like this, it hurts your (fundamentally very good!) point. I have no problem with nuance. I just refuse to compromise on many fundamental ideas. The fundamental idea I defend here is: I own this machine, therefore I can and should be able to do anything. The idea that someone should be prevented, by his own computer, from cheating at video games, is offensive. Who are they to tell you what you can't do with your computer? It's your machine. If you want to freeze your character's health in memory so that you cannot be damaged, it's your god given right to do it. Before I can consider nuances, I need to defend the above idea first. Because if I compromise on that, it opens the door to their invasive anticheat rootkits. Because I'm not at all saying "all multiplayer games should die", I am saying they should die if that's the price of our freedom. Cheating is a literal non-issue compared to corporations policing what we do or don't do with our computers. If stopping cheating requires that, then just let people cheat. If they can't find a way to prevent cheating other than installing a literal rootkit in my Linux kernel, maybe it just wasn't meant to be.
- wqaatwt 2y ago
  > be damaged, it's your god given right to do it. Just like it’s the “god given right” of the organization running the server you want to connect to to boot you from it for whatever reason they want to. Or do you disagree with that? And you are free to do whatever even in most (AFAIK) games that use have anticheat software and allow you to turn it off. You just have to stick to single player mode which I assume makes “cheating” less fun. Anyway what right do you have to deny anyone’s god given right to deny anyone the right to install software (even one that runs in the background and verifies/checks the memory of other processes) they chose to? After all it’s their computer..

matheusmoreira 2y ago

Let's not compare video game cheats to murder. Let's avoid putting those two things in the same sentence. > argue for something like server side anti-cheat I have done that. Here's the direct quote from an earlier comment from me: > they better run their "anticheat" nonsense on their computers There is no inherent problem with server side anti-cheating measures. Their servers are their computers. I'm not gonna tell them what software they can or can't run on their machines. I just wish they'd extend me the exact same respect. Whether server side anti-cheating measures are effective is a completely separate issue. It's also completely irrelevant. The failure of server side anti-cheating software does not excuse their invasion of our computers to compensate. > rally against games that include crapware I do object to that as well. > Seek nuance or find a middle ground instead of grandstanding on absolutism like this, it hurts your (fundamentally very good!) point. I have no problem with nuance. I just refuse to compromise on many fundamental ideas. The fundamental idea I defend here is: I own this machine, therefore I can and should be able to do anything. The idea that someone should be prevented, by his own computer, from cheating at video games, is offensive. Who are they to tell you what you can't do with your computer? It's your machine. If you want to freeze your character's health in memory so that you cannot be damaged, it's your god given right to do it. Before I can consider nuances, I need to defend the above idea first. Because if I compromise on that, it opens the door to their invasive anticheat rootkits. Because I'm not at all saying "all multiplayer games should die", I am saying they should die if that's the price of our freedom. Cheating is a literal non-issue compared to corporations policing what we do or don't do with our computers. If stopping cheating requires that, then just let people cheat. If they can't find a way to prevent cheating other than installing a literal rootkit in my Linux kernel, maybe it just wasn't meant to be.

wqaatwt 2y ago
> be damaged, it's your god given right to do it. Just like it’s the “god given right” of the organization running the server you want to connect to to boot you from it for whatever reason they want to. Or do you disagree with that? And you are free to do whatever even in most (AFAIK) games that use have anticheat software and allow you to turn it off. You just have to stick to single player mode which I assume makes “cheating” less fun. Anyway what right do you have to deny anyone’s god given right to deny anyone the right to install software (even one that runs in the background and verifies/checks the memory of other processes) they chose to? After all it’s their computer..