Rationalization

[davemartin88]

A case can be made for civil disobedience, but in a competition I just can't live with it. The good old boys will right it eventually when they get the cover to do so (and not before) without admitting anything, but it will most likely take years and more patience than I can muster...

Seems to me that if you would be uncomfortable winning using the $79 software version since it is against the rules and don't want to spend the $1200, then you can compete just for the fun of it without worrying about your result. If that doesn't sound like fun, then would skip the event but cheating (even if only technically) isn't something I'd knowingly get involved in given your descriptions? Good luck on the decision- BTW, doesn't honestly matter to me what the event is, lol.

 

[marko]

Maybe I'm misreading this entirely, but as a follower of the America's cup....

Imoldernu, my very first thought when I read Midpack's post was the America's Cup. Remember that stupid year when they ran a catamaran against a monohull?

 

[imoldernu]

Taking this conundrum a bit further...
Technology versus skill.
Let me broaden the broaden the analogy to point up a real case scenario. Ever since ancient times, man has been engaged in competition in athletics. Presumably physical ability would be based on things an athlete could do to enhance strength, speed and agility... and until recent times... perhaps 50 years, records would fall based on speed or distance. The standards for measurement were relatively stable, and the rules (for the most part) stable.

With some experience in the sport, I would point out swimming as a case in point. Until the middle 1950's the rules of the game were relatively unchanged. Swim strokes were proscribed, ie. breast stroke meant hands in the water and the "frog" kick. This morphed into the butterfly, with a frog kick, and eventually into the butterfly with a "dolphin" kick. And so, a new event was conceived, with separate rules.
The idea of keeping the rules intact, was to complete the equality of measurement between the same skills so as to maintain some relationship of the physical progress.

In the '50's and 60's more changes were made in the manner in which the physical skills would be enhanced through natural means keeping the same rules (ie. touch with hands at both ends of the pool.) Within those rules, novel changes were made... the touch and turn replaced by the Ohio State turn, and then by the "flip" turn... the employment of the dolphin kick in place of the flutter kick underwater. And thus, records fell... better training, better techniques, better out of water physical conditioning. In all of this, records fell bit by bit, but almost always as a result of improvement of physical skills...

In other words, a level playing field.

Today, not so much... Technology has led to unequal measurements for comparison with older standards.
-The redesign of swimming pools to avoid back wash waves
-Temperature control of water
-Raised starting blocks
-No-slip wall touch points
-Out of water starts for backstroke
-Unlimited underwater dolphin kick freestyle rules
-Sleek high tech swim suits... ladies suit almost $500.
Speedo Women's LZR Racer X Closed Back Kneeskin at SwimOutlet.com - Free Shipping

And so it goes... depending on the kind of competition, a measurement of skill (physical or mental) and technology.

Back to square one... and I believe that Midpack had it right. The decision of the "governing body" to make it a game of skill, or a game of money... in this case technology. It is unlikely that the America's Cup winner will be the guy who built his craft in the backyard.

Garry Kasparov versus IBM's Big Blue.... yeah... and underinflated footballs.

 

[eytonxav]

Nope, care to show us? Not sure what your point would be anyway...

I just thought I remembered a post you made in the past with a similar theme, so here you go:

http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f27/why-cant-i-lighten-up-on-cheaters-63042.html

 

[MooreBonds]

My bottom line, cheating is cheating and it is wrong.

The only time in my life that I cheated was on a 6th grade weekly science class quiz. It had 5 questions. I was stuck on an answer, and (truthfully) accidentally turned my head up as I was trying to think of the answer, and accidentally got a glimpse of the answer from the boy in the desk in front of me.

I wrote the answer down on my quiz, and got a 100%.

I got the quiz back, and instead of feeling joy at the perfect score, I felt empty - because I knew that I couldn't look in the mirror and know that I had excelled at something, because I used someone else's answer.

From then on, I had a full resolve to never cheat, and I haven't (before that point, I wasn't tempted to cheat, but I had never been in that situation before).

So every time I had a test score of a "less than desirable outcome", at least I could look at myself in the mirror and say "I earned it honestly".

Perhaps some might think they interpret the "intent" differently in this situation. Perhaps others like creating their own rules. If it were me in this competition, I would gain no satisfaction from winning or placing in the top 3 in an event that I knew I willfully violated the rules, no matter how 'silly'.

If many teams cheat, and you are willing to cheat - then why bother entering? And also, if you "know" many teams cheat, do you really want to enter? Do you stand a chance of winning if you don't cheat? If you really do stand a chance of winning honestly without cheating, then why cheat - unless all that matters is winning? Wouldn't the taste of victory be so much sweeter if you knew you did it with integrity and with honesty?

(sarcasm)
Hell, if you're going to cheat, then go all the way - get mechanical assistance. Use other means to flagrantly skirt the other rules and ensure a win. Why stop at cheating with one rule? Break 'em all and make sure you get that trophy at all costs! (/sarcasm)

 

[Texas Proud]

Taking this conundrum a bit further...
Technology versus skill.
Let me broaden the broaden the analogy to point up a real case scenario. Ever since ancient times, man has been engaged in competition in athletics. Presumably physical ability would be based on things an athlete could do to enhance strength, speed and agility... and until recent times... perhaps 50 years, records would fall based on speed or distance. The standards for measurement were relatively stable, and the rules (for the most part) stable.

With some experience in the sport, I would point out swimming as a case in point. Until the middle 1950's the rules of the game were relatively unchanged. Swim strokes were proscribed, ie. breast stroke meant hands in the water and the "frog" kick. This morphed into the butterfly, with a frog kick, and eventually into the butterfly with a "dolphin" kick. And so, a new event was conceived, with separate rules.
The idea of keeping the rules intact, was to complete the equality of measurement between the same skills so as to maintain some relationship of the physical progress.

In the '50's and 60's more changes were made in the manner in which the physical skills would be enhanced through natural means keeping the same rules (ie. touch with hands at both ends of the pool.) Within those rules, novel changes were made... the touch and turn replaced by the Ohio State turn, and then by the "flip" turn... the employment of the dolphin kick in place of the flutter kick underwater. And thus, records fell... better training, better techniques, better out of water physical conditioning. In all of this, records fell bit by bit, but almost always as a result of improvement of physical skills...

In other words, a level playing field.

Today, not so much... Technology has led to unequal measurements for comparison with older standards.
-The redesign of swimming pools to avoid back wash waves
-Temperature control of water
-Raised starting blocks
-No-slip wall touch points
-Out of water starts for backstroke
-Unlimited underwater dolphin kick freestyle rules
-Sleek high tech swim suits... ladies suit almost $500.
Speedo Women's LZR Racer X Closed Back Kneeskin at SwimOutlet.com - Free Shipping

And so it goes... depending on the kind of competition, a measurement of skill (physical or mental) and technology.

Back to square one... and I believe that Midpack had it right. The decision of the "governing body" to make it a game of skill, or a game of money... in this case technology. It is unlikely that the America's Cup winner will be the guy who built his craft in the backyard.

Garry Kasparov versus IBM's Big Blue.... yeah... and underinflated footballs.

If I am not mistake they have limited the unlimited underwater kick.... if you do not surface by a certain point you are disqualified..... they also have banned the high tech suits... they still might be more high tech than before, but not the newest ones that are even better....



The problem is that equipment on most sports get better.... look at tennis... nobody today could compete with a wooden racket.... look at golf.... if you had the clubs of Arnold Palmer you would not make the tour... probably the same with the balls...

Now, for the masses where we compete, there is not enough difference in the equipment to really make that much of a difference.... IOW, you will not cut 10 strokes off you game by buying the best clubs over some cheap set....

 

[growing_older]

I have been a little league coach for many years in both baseball and soccer. Many coaches are in the game for fun and for promoting a good experience for the kids, but a small minority are in it for the glory and will try to win at all costs. I have seen coaches that recruit players from other districts or opposing teams, lie about players home addresses, lie about players ages or counsel parents to lie on registrations, coach their players to practice dangerous and illegal moves (think elbows and trips for physical intimidation when referees are distracted), coach players to injure opponents, blatantly ignore limits on number of innings a player can pitch, neglect to include less skilled players at all in games despite participation rules, and even actively attempt to trick opponent players during games (such as calling for a player to toss a live ball to the sidelines for inspection). Smugly, many of them use the aphorism "if you aren't cheating, you aren't trying hard enough" and spread that philosophy to their players.

Much as I might enjoy coaching at higher levels of the games I love, I have restricted myself to the instructional leagues and "farm" leagues because these kinds of cheating are almost universal at higher levels of play. Not that every team employs such tactics, but every league will include at least one and likely several teams who behave this way. This kills my enjoyment of the game, and does similar for the kids. They know when they have been cheated. They can see that failure to sanction the cheaters means that cheaters do get ahead.

 

[Midpack]

I just thought I remembered a post you made in the past with a similar theme, so here you go:

http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f27/why-cant-i-lighten-up-on-cheaters-63042.html

Almost 3 years ago, and not the same situation at all. That was blatant cheating with well thought out rules and no plausible rationalization whatsoever.