[Taiga] wrote:
Yes, you are mixing real life and computer game, to be more precise, you are applying real life behaviors into internet which is wrong.
Do you want argument, ok:
Let's say, you like to play poker. You go to big casino in Vegas, and then, you cards are not good. So you start cheating. First time went ok, noone catched you, you do this couple more time until someone catch you up. Cheating is cheating, you get law case into face, you get punished and forever blacklisted in whole Vegas. You either pay money for your crime or even get into jail.
My dear - it doesn't matter what kind of punishment you get, it's natural behavior for most of humans to go back into cheating becouse "i already know what i done wrong, now i am gonna avoid this and still cheat! ez money, ez life!". People do not change in this matter, never.
Do you think that any time Vegas will get you out from blacklist? Nooooo... you stay there forever as dirty cheater.
Same here - unbanning a cheater is a big slap into players face becouse obviously he destroyed someones gameplay.
You don't need to agree with me but don't try to convince me into changing my opinion.
As i said - for me cheaters are and will be cheaters forever. They should be banned forever. They don't deserve second chance, NEVER.
first you say that I can't compare cheating here to cheating IRL, then you do the exact same thing with making your poker-example? You are contradicting yourself.
As for the second part of your comment, it's circular. You say that people don't change because people don't change. I don't think that your "natural behavior"-point is conclusive at all. You claim that cheating is some sort of default-state that people revert to, no matter what.
So let's take a look at what cheating really is, at its core.
In my opinion, the best characterization of cheating is
"repeated offenses against a working system for egoistic reasons with negative consequences for others".
How is this supposed to be a default-state?
In the overwhelming majority of postulated models for cognitive or moral development, the action in question would fall into an earlier category, one that is no more than a foundation for further development. Something between the lines of: "Self-centered, without consideration for the established order, for why this order is useful and for why and how the taken actions are harmful for others."
Read
Kohlberg, read
Loevinger, read
Robert Kegan. Personality isn't stable, its dynamic.
I posted about zero-tolerance policies in another thread, but I guess this isn't even the point of the discussion anymore. I just can't believe how someone can hold views that counter-intuitive, when everything around you demonstrates the opposite. Selective attention taken to an extreme? I don't know, but I really don't want to elaborate on this further. Read up on modern theories of character-development, or just take a look around you.