Jump to content


BBC piece of news

Bbc cheat

  • Please log in to reply
104 replies to this topic

jabster #101 Posted 21 September 2019 - 01:40 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12790 battles
  • 26,535
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostSovietBias, on 21 September 2019 - 12:33 PM, said:

 

To be fair, there was never much to be said about the original topic. I think nobody denies the existence of cheats in online games. And regarding their prevalence, the article posted brings nothing new to the table.

 

 

I think the issue lies with what is the object of proof and evidence.

 

Generally in academic research you talk about proof when you are referring to the hypothesis being tested or the theorem being proposed, and ( in empirical questions) you seek some sort of statistical validation of facts that establish the relation - or constitute evidence of what - you originally intend to prove.

 

Naturally a single empirical regularity may not be enough to prove whatever you intend to in the first place, and being only a part of a set of evidence needed, there's no equivalence between the whole and it's parts. The issue is that the object is being implicitly assumed different: you mean proof when you talk about the relation being studied, but there is nothing wrong in saying that the body of facts you compiled are evidence of that relation -  as in they prove or validate that relation. When the claim they refer to is the same, they mean the same.

 

Same with a criminal trial. Say evidence A is a CCTV video showing you entering a liquor store where a crime happened. There will be more evidence needed to assert that you are the author of the crime. However, the fact that you being there is not proof you commited the crime, does not mean that evidence of you being there isn't the same as proof of you being there. The issue is that the we are changing the object each time we discuss evidence and proof, hence they will logically differ in domain.

 

At least this is what I can get from this discussion. And such is the nature of a synonym: given a certain context, two words have the same meaning.

 

I think it is clear that we are not arguing this because we believe an indication of X means X is true.

 


The problem is synonymous means they are pretty much the same thing when clearly evidence and proof are not.



kaneloon #102 Posted 21 September 2019 - 01:52 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 31555 battles
  • 4,089
  • [RHIN0] RHIN0
  • Member since:
    11-18-2011

View PostSovietBias, on 21 September 2019 - 12:33 PM, said:

 

To be fair, there was never much to be said about the original topic. I think nobody denies the existence of cheats in online games. And regarding their prevalence, the article posted brings nothing new to the table.

 

 

Well, the original post about the BBC thing was kind of wondering where the fun is in cheating versus learning and improving your skill.

There is no world fame here or money to grab (for cheat users that is).

Is it because when you did once you cannot turn back ? Like drugs ?



SovietBias #103 Posted 21 September 2019 - 02:04 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 39776 battles
  • 1,760
  • Member since:
    06-10-2013

View Postjabster, on 21 September 2019 - 12:40 PM, said:


The problem is synonymous means they are pretty much the same thing when clearly evidence and proof are not.

 

It depends of what they refer to. At least that's my understanding of it. Not being a native may influence my perception.

 

I must say I only checked Merriam Webster and evidence and proof are stated there as synonyms. 

13:09 Added after 4 minute

View Postkaneloon, on 21 September 2019 - 12:52 PM, said:

 

Well, the original post about the BBC thing was kind of wondering where the fun is in cheating versus learning and improving your skill.

There is no world fame here or money to grab (for cheat users that is).

Is it because when you did once you cannot turn back ? Like drugs ?

 

Maybe I'm behind a paywall I did not know if, but the article you quoted is basically 3 paragraphs about hacks being sold and some Chinese dudes being arrested. 

 

I'm not sure where you are getting at?


Edited by SovietBias, 21 September 2019 - 02:09 PM.


LordMuffin #104 Posted 21 September 2019 - 02:46 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 53499 battles
  • 13,409
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    06-21-2011

View Postspamhamstar, on 21 September 2019 - 11:42 AM, said:

Dear god, I seriously give up.  Proof is not the same as evidence & they are most certainly not synonyms.  The 2 words can never be substituded for one another in a sentence & always, always have completely different meanings. 

 

Just because not one of you can give a single example in relation to the context of this thread, or any other context you've dreamed up for that matter, doesn't mean anything at all.  Proof is always 100% despite only having to be enough to convince people of the truth.  Evidence of something in no way requires any degree of accuracy whatsoever & I was silly to think otherwise.

 

So get back to your never before discussed discussion about cheating which is entirely new & axciting because someone found an article from the BBC about the prevalence of cheating in another game, which of course is or isn't evidence of cheating in WoT but most certainly is not or perhaps is proof of cheating in WoT, because those are 2 entirely seperate things or aren't.  That way we can all throw in entirely new & interesting comments about the game being server side or having rng, or how unicums don't need to cheat, or how we feel like hardly anyone cheats or can't tell anything from getting shot, which mean cheats in WoT are entirely pointless anyway.  Of course that doesn't require proof or evidence just an opinion which in fact constitutes both, despite not being the same thing.  Synonyms always mean exactly the same thing & can always be substituted with each other in 100% of cases & don't even have the slightest difference, even if only in nuance.  In fact Synonyms are proof, but not evidence.

 

Seriously this forum  :izmena:

 

Enjoy

 

Nice to see you accepted being wrong. 



Tealo #105 Posted 21 September 2019 - 03:40 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 43736 battles
  • 417
  • [RIFF] RIFF
  • Member since:
    04-26-2012

Why do you guys keep going on about proof or evidence??

  WG don't need any poof or evidence of anything! They can ban any one at any time, don't need a reason..

It's not a court of law..  As many here have point out many times the game is property of Wargamming just like any bussiness say a Pub or a Restruant etc.. The owner has the right to eject anyone from their premisies, No reason needed!!!

   It's better if you don't give a reason, as there are various laws against descrimination (racial, religious etc..) which of course a bussiness owner can't under those grounds or rather can get into legal trouble for! So it's better not to, simply refuse service ie Block the Account and legally speaking (Again) Doesn't Have To Give A Reason!

:B


Edited by Tealo, 21 September 2019 - 03:45 PM.





2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users