Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   Chit-Chat (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=14)
-   -   If there are no winners? (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48010)

Bill_Hancoc 21-06-2006 18:20

If there are no winners?
 
Ok so i was sitting around late one night and this came to my mind...for no reason or applying to first but
"If there are no winners, does it matter if anybody cheats?"

Koko Ed 21-06-2006 18:29

Re: If there are no winners?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill_Hancoc
Ok so i was sitting around late one night and this came to my mind...for no reason or applying to first but
"If there are no winners, does it matter if anybody cheats?"

It's like saying because you didn't get caught there was no crime. Cheating is still wrong whether you win or not.

Bill_Hancoc 21-06-2006 19:00

Re: If there are no winners?
 
Not if you didnt win but if your playing a game where the out come is the same for everybody no winners or losers.

Jeremiah Johnson 21-06-2006 19:41

Re: If there are no winners?
 
If there were no winners or losers, then why would anyone cheat in the first place? Cheating is roughly defined as doing something against the rules to gain an advantage one an opponent. But if there is no advantage to gain, then you can't cheat... right?

Cuog 21-06-2006 19:56

Re: If there are no winners?
 
wel if there are no winners then the game is all about the gameplay, and lets face it the game becomes more interesting wen cheating happens,im still alittle indesiciveon this tho so whatever.

xzvrw2 21-06-2006 20:11

Re: If there are no winners?
 
Well heres my opinion,
If a baseball player wants to ruin their body to take steroids to entertain me, let him, its his decision.

Morgan Gillespie 21-06-2006 21:04

Re: If there are no winners?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by xzvrw2
Well heres my opinion,
If a baseball player wants to ruin their body to take steroids to entertain me, let him, its his decision.

Thats not what this is asking, this topic is asking is if the outcome of the game is neither a victory nor a loss to any player. Like playing a game where no one actually keeps score.

[nerd]Its like playing with mods on a game where all players have infinite health.[/nerd]

Elgin Clock 21-06-2006 21:07

Re: If there are no winners?
 
If there are no winners, then there are no losers, and cheating in and of itself would be futile.

I voted no btw..

Bill_Hancoc 21-06-2006 22:06

Re: If there are no winners?
 
Kinda like Whose line is it anyway....everythings made up and the points dont matter, yup the points dont matter (insert clever saying here)

except it is of a more competive nature...since whose line isnt really about winning or losing at all

Steve W 21-06-2006 22:11

Re: If there are no winners?
 
A persons real character is defined by what they do when no one is looking. If you cheat, win lose or tie, you are still a cheater.

miketwalker 21-06-2006 22:57

Re: If there are no winners?
 
I'm on the same page as Koko Ed and Steve W.

I think another way to state is incredibly well done by one of my favorite quotes of all time:
Quote:

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." - Abraham Lincoln

Dan Petrovic 21-06-2006 23:03

Re: If there are no winners?
 
People cheat to win.

If there are no winners, then it doesn't matter if one cheats. In other words, cheating made no difference in this situation. Since no one is a winner, than no one can accuse anyone of cheating, so no one will ever know.

It would be as if the cheater didn't cheat.

JoeXIII'007 21-06-2006 23:12

Re: If there are no winners?
 
OK, cheating is like weaponery, advanced weaponery that was never included with the instruction manual.

I am alright with the argument that if there were no winners and cheating was involved, then its OK because obviously cheating didn't give anyone an unfair advantage.

But then we meet Mr. On Ess Tee, who refuses to cheat, but builds one of the best characters, gameplans, strategies, whatever. He becomes a loser in this battle of no winners with cheaters. You just gotta feel sorry for the guy, ya know.

Besides, if you cheat, you're an ethical loser. No if and or buts about it. SO, would you prefer to be the loser that cheated, or the loser that fought the good fight? ;)

George1902 21-06-2006 23:21

Re: If there are no winners?
 
I think this is the definition of cheating you're referring to: to violate rules deliberately, as in a game.

If there are no winners, then there is no competition. You can't cheat if there is no competition.

So, I'll argue that according to this definition not only doesn't it matter, but it's impossible to cheat if there are no winners.

JaneYoung 22-06-2006 00:13

Re: If there are no winners?
 
If there are rules involved in the game it matters whether there is a winner or not.
My thinking is this:
- there are those who want to learn and understand the rules so that they can abide by them and follow them
- there are those who want to know how far they can bend the rules
and
- there are those who want to know the rules so that they can break them/disregard them

How we respect the rules of the game is a reflection of our character and integrity - win, lose, or draw


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:08.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi