Autistic Xbox Player's Mother Admits He Cheated

[pretentiousname01]

Well since he loved achievements so much he can just earn them all over again.

Its like double the fun right?

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

Snip snip-

Check the law: ignorance of it is no excuse for breaking it. Assuming the kid didn't know what he was doing was wrong (which, as I should point out, has nothing to do with the fact the kid is austistic; any young kid probably wouldn't know what cheating is...), the mature thing to do would've been to say "Well I didn't know that was cheating but I do for next time".

Now assuming the kid was incapable of understanding what he did was cheating, it would be up to the mother to make that call for him. The article quite clearly stated the mother warned her kid against what he was doing, so your argument really holds no water.

Don't get me wrong, there are some rules I don't agree with. For example, I believe it is disgusting down here in Australia gays are not allowed to get married. However, I fully believe that breaking the law is grounds for just punishment for doing so.

I'm so tired of people like you trying to put people with disabilities on some kind of pedastal. I've seen plenty of cases where people, without any form of disability, have done something with their Xbox they weren't aware was considered cheating. Why should this austistic kid get his points back over those other people?

You cannot have one set of rules for one person, and another set of rules for everyone else. As I've said before, the fact this kid was autistic has less than nothing to do with this case; any young kid probably wouldn't understand what this kid did would be considered as cheating. It would be up to the mother to prevent her kid from doing it, and if the mother also didn't know then that sucks for the kid, but by no means does that mean he should get his points back.

*sigh* If a mentally retarded person does something wrong, I expect them to get some form of punishment. If a normal person does something wrong, I expect them to get some form of punishment. Obviously, there would be differing circumstances in some cases (what pleading insanity is for, afterall). However, no one should be allowed to do something wrong and get off scott free.

But hey, it's good to see the mother's desperate attempt for sympathy has worked on you. Any young kid would probably look at this and say "Well I don't understand what I did was cheating", but just because the kid is austistic you feel he should be given a free ride.

Hell take it even further, you punish a little kid for anything and chances are they're going to have no idea what they did was wrong (until you punish them for it enough times, they get the picture).

My entire point was about agency. Ignorance of the law, and the incapability to understand the law are two different things. Do we punish a train for crashing and killing people? No, because it's a frigging train. If the autistic kid is capable of understanding the situation and just hasn't learned to, then yes, punishing him actually accomplishes something. But if he just isn't going to understand anyway, then there's no real point other than upholding some grand abstracted idea of 'Justice' or personal vengeance.

Why? Why do people cling to these ideas of objective morality? It's all just a construct. There's just no need to have stringent un-bendable codes. Each situation is different, the more adaptable the system the better off it is. Now I don't know if you have this in Australia, but in America we have a thing called 'jury nullification'. This happens when the entire jury finds the law to be lacking in the particular situation, they vote the defendant innocent, even though he or she is guilty under the law. To clarify, this isn't a term that just describes what sometimes happens in spite of the law, IT IS PART OF THE LAW. The law is bendable because it does not arise out of some sort of eternal metaphysical code of right and wrong, but out of the needs of society.

But you don't seem to understand that I'm making a more general point. In this situation, the mother did cheat, and the kid may very well know what he did was wrong, in which case he should have been punished because it means that he won't do it next time. But that being said, I feel more sympathy for the kid because of his situation. Really the mother is the one who is really morally culpable, and she's the one who will know better for next time.

One final thing. People with disabilities should get special treatment. The special treatment should just be proportional to the disability. You wouldn't say a paraplegic is a bad person for not pulling someone out of a burning car would you? They can't. A person with Tourette's should be excused for shouting obscenities. Etc. Etc. If the autistic person doesn't understand what they're doing, they should be excused as well. Notice I am saying "doesn't understand what they're doing" which is different from simply being ignorant of the law.

First and foremost how is MS supposed to keep track of millions of people with all their disabilities? Or let everyone else know that we are supposed to treat them proportionally because of it? Would it be better if on his gamertag "excuse my achievements being out of order because I have autism." This is of course after we all are subjected to a battery of psychological exams before we are allowed to sign up to Live in the first place. Since you can't have people claiming they have a disability to get this special treatment in the first place. Or maybe MS could add a new type of gamer. Right now there is stuff like underground and family and such. Why not make a new server and call it something like Special? Then we can keep them away from the "normal" players and they can do whatever they want. Lets just take away one of the last places where people with mental disabilities are treated equally and fairly. Where they aren't subjected to being put in the special class and being told how different they are. I mean that is the only fair way to make sure they are protected from the "normals". And the "normals" are protected from them. Afterall that is why we have Special Olympics and Special classes. They can't keep up with the "normals" and the "normals" shouldn't have to slow down for them. So lets just keep them seperated all together.

I don't know about you but to me that sounds quite offensive. And by far worse than having you achievements taken away and getting smacked with a label of exactly what you are. A cheater regardless if you know better or not.

I'm sorry that facts offend you. They have the special Olympics because paraplegics in wheelchairs can't keep up with world-class sprinters. Life isn't fair, some people are better at some things than others. You don't need to build in a special system for autistic people, the company can basically do whatever it wants, if some mother complains that her child was unaware of what he was doing (imagine a scenario in which the mother didn't know, and the kid doesn't understand what cheating is), then they could give them special treatment. If the child is affected that much by it, the mother can send in letters to the company with proof, (i.e. a letter from her child's psychologist that says he's incapable of understanding what cheating is). I guess you also think that blind people shouldn't be allowed to bring their seeing eye dogs into restaurants that generally ban animals. That's a special case right? They should be treated as equals and be allowed to stumble around and spill hot coffee on themselves right? Do we really need to feed ourselves this lie that everyone is equal in spite of the facts?

You have misunderstood. You obviously missed the line "Lets just take away one of the last places where people with mental disabilities are treated equally and fairly. Or maybe I didn't make it clear. Do you think they want to be treated differently? Do you think the, to use your example, parpalegic who can't pull the person out of the car is happy about that fact? That people will ruffle his hair and say it's ok Jimmy we understand you couldn't help because you are special. Do you not think that they would love to be treated like everyone else inspite of their disability if it were physically possible? So there is one place they can and you want to take that away from them? Why because it hurts their feelings? Or because they aren't given an advantage? But instead put on a level playing field where they are just as capable to compete with anyone else disabled or not.

No. I think you're the one who misunderstands. I never said anything about people being forced into different gamerzones or anything like that. My one example is a person who is incapable of understanding what cheating is, what are the chances that person is going to have complex attitudes about fairness or equality? You're confusing fairness with blind adherence to codes without taking the situation at hand into account. This would be a person who just plays a game, and then has their achievements taken away and doesn't understand why. This is perhaps not the kid in the article, but there are people like that out there. Plus, I was only advocating that people with disabilities be given positive benefits. In fact, I think it is unfair that we should disregard extenuating circumstances. If your point is that it is unfair that there are disabled people then you need to take that up with god or mother nature. Society doesn't decide whether they are equal in their abilities, there is just a fact of the matter.

Your solution seems to be that we don't have a special Olympics at all, because we don't want people with disabilities to think that they're different. They might not like being different, but they are. If Jimmy the paraplegic is upset because people don't expect him to perform physical feats he is incapable of, then he's really upset about his condition, not about people. If you take that same person and then accuse him of being a coward for not helping, the FIRST thing he is going to do is point out that he was incapable of helping. If you think we should pit people in wheelchairs against world class sprinters, I can tell you right now that it isn't going to help their self esteem in the slightest when they get lapped.

I don't think the answer is to delude them about their lives, I think it is to try to accommodate them so that their lives are as fulfilling as possible. A person in a wheelchair needs to recognize and come to terms with his or her condition, and society needs to do its part to make sure that their disadvantages are compensated for. I don't know where you got the idea that I was suggesting that autistic people be given their own gamerzones or leagues in videogames. The reason why videogames are one of the last bastions for the disabled to be treated equally is BECAUSE THEY ARE EQUAL WHEN IT COMES TO VIDEOGAMES. Aside from people who have a disability that affects their motor function, most people can play videogames. No one needs help unless they actually need or want help. No one forces people to use wheelchairs, they could crawl if they really wanted to. It's just that no one in their right mind wants to. There's no reason to compensate for most people in videogames because they don't need compensation. Even the example I am talking about isn't at all a reference to the autistic child's ability to play, just their ability to understand what cheating is. It's a point about cheating and punishment, not about who should be allowed to play videogames. One could argue that it is unfair to other people because when they are put into that position, they will be punished, but this is clearly mistaken because the scenario wouldn't be the same unless they also had the same extenuating mental condition.

I was talking about one extreme and abstract case where the agent can't be held fully responsible for his or her actions. I didn't even say that he should be able to keep the achievements he or she cheated for, I just think that the situation would require a more nuanced reaction because of the special circumstances. I made no such claims that autistic people should have their own league. That's all you bro. Have you ever heard of a straw-man fallacy?

First if they are playing the games and getting the rewards there isn't a problem. Second read my post again. but this time really read it. Try and see if you can find the tone. I suggested the "special" not because it is a good idea because it isn't. But because that is the only way it would work to keep things fair for everybody. Oh right I forgot you are against people being treated fairly. Which leads us down a very slippery slope.

You must be daft. I know that you don't like treating people as special, and I made arguments in response to that. I also made arguments about what 'fairness' is and why your definition thereof is deficient. In fact I made arguments that the only way to treat people fairly is to take their circumstances into account. You're really just begging the question. Be careful, the last two sentences could be taken as implying that I am a German nationalist circa 1940, which as we all know is the sure sign of defeat in internet debates.

 

[Jaythulhu]

I'm entirely confused as to how this is considered cheating. Getting someone else to get unlocks that you wrere unable to get yourself was common practice when I was a kid. I guess with all the whinging, hooting crybabies out there playing games now, the companies that make them have to hold such a strong line against anything lest they face an onslaught of abuse from people.

Seriously tho, an autistic kid gets banned for someone else unlocking a suit of not-so-useful armour in a game? That's just beyond stupid. The kid's autistic ffs, he's probably physically and mentally incapable of getting it himself, so why not let someone without any kind of neurological or physical handicap get it for him? It's not like this caused a massive world-wide upset in gamerscores, causing the work of basement-dwellers with no life to lose all of the dubious honours they've achieved in game, leading in to a meltdown of servers and competitive play across the globe.

It's a set of shitty armour in a game that can be best described as limited and derivative. Big freakin' whoop. Congrats, gamers and MS, for making a giant volcanic mountain out of a mosquito bite.

 

[herpaderphurr]

Be autistic or an austistic's parents. Cheat, if not completely knowingly. Cry. Get a month of Xbox Live Gold, free.

 

[Jaythulhu]

How is him allowing someone in a different city (obviously a friend of the child) more capable of unlocking the armour to do so any different than someone handing the control pad to their more capable friend that's come over to visit them?

This is a non-story of pathetic proportions. M$ and the gamers who complained about it ought to be ashamed of themselves. Grow up and get over it, it's a goddamned video game.

 

[bulldogftw]

He fought Microsoft and Microsoft won.

 

[ESCAPIST DELETE THIS ACCOUNT]

Pretty good example of why you shouldnt lie.

 

[Queen Michael]

I feel just two words encapsulate this story from the get-go perfectly:

"Concerned mother".

I love this post.

I'm ashamed to admit that reading the original story, I first thought what basically amounts to "Come on, can't they realize he's autistic and therefore has super-powers?" But at least, once I got to the end of it, I understood that it could be that the kid actually did cheat. An autistic kid can do that as well, after all.

 

[Jamash]

How is him allowing someone in a different city (obviously a friend of the child) more capable of unlocking the armour to do so any different than someone handing the control pad to their more capable friend that's come over to visit them?

This is a non-story of pathetic proportions. M$ and the gamers who complained about it ought to be ashamed of themselves. Grow up and get over it, it's a goddamned video game.

The "friend" didn't play the game for him to unlock the achievements and Recon Armour, he hacked the Gamertag profile so the achievements and armour were automatically unlocked, without meeting the gameplay requirements.

Microsoft could tell these were unlocked illegitimately because these achievements are online achievements, but were unlocked while the profile was offline, and in less time than it takes to physically unlock them.

This person probably wasn't a "friend", but a hacker selling his illegitimate services, who probably offered to unlock the Recon Armour on this kids account in exchange for Microsoft points or money.

If this person truly was a "friend", why was the Cheater's mother ratting him out on Twitter and trying to put all the blame on him? If this "friend" told Microsoft why he unlocked the Recon Armour and what he received for doing that, the consequences would have been just as bad for the person receiving his services.

This kid in the story is very lucky he didn't get his account suspended until 12/12/9999, which is usually what happens to anyone who is found to engage in the "sale or receipt of Xbox LIVE or in-game services for Microsoft Points or money".

Unlocking Recon Armour in Halo 3 is just as illegal as running hacked prestige lobbies in Modern Warfare 2 and personally, I think Microsoft took it easy on the kid, as with a little bit more investigation they could have legitimately banned his account and confiscated all DLC and X-Box Live Arcade games associated with it.

 

[squid5580]

Snip snip-

Check the law: ignorance of it is no excuse for breaking it. Assuming the kid didn't know what he was doing was wrong (which, as I should point out, has nothing to do with the fact the kid is austistic; any young kid probably wouldn't know what cheating is...), the mature thing to do would've been to say "Well I didn't know that was cheating but I do for next time".

Now assuming the kid was incapable of understanding what he did was cheating, it would be up to the mother to make that call for him. The article quite clearly stated the mother warned her kid against what he was doing, so your argument really holds no water.

Don't get me wrong, there are some rules I don't agree with. For example, I believe it is disgusting down here in Australia gays are not allowed to get married. However, I fully believe that breaking the law is grounds for just punishment for doing so.

I'm so tired of people like you trying to put people with disabilities on some kind of pedastal. I've seen plenty of cases where people, without any form of disability, have done something with their Xbox they weren't aware was considered cheating. Why should this austistic kid get his points back over those other people?

You cannot have one set of rules for one person, and another set of rules for everyone else. As I've said before, the fact this kid was autistic has less than nothing to do with this case; any young kid probably wouldn't understand what this kid did would be considered as cheating. It would be up to the mother to prevent her kid from doing it, and if the mother also didn't know then that sucks for the kid, but by no means does that mean he should get his points back.

*sigh* If a mentally retarded person does something wrong, I expect them to get some form of punishment. If a normal person does something wrong, I expect them to get some form of punishment. Obviously, there would be differing circumstances in some cases (what pleading insanity is for, afterall). However, no one should be allowed to do something wrong and get off scott free.

But hey, it's good to see the mother's desperate attempt for sympathy has worked on you. Any young kid would probably look at this and say "Well I don't understand what I did was cheating", but just because the kid is austistic you feel he should be given a free ride.

Hell take it even further, you punish a little kid for anything and chances are they're going to have no idea what they did was wrong (until you punish them for it enough times, they get the picture).

My entire point was about agency. Ignorance of the law, and the incapability to understand the law are two different things. Do we punish a train for crashing and killing people? No, because it's a frigging train. If the autistic kid is capable of understanding the situation and just hasn't learned to, then yes, punishing him actually accomplishes something. But if he just isn't going to understand anyway, then there's no real point other than upholding some grand abstracted idea of 'Justice' or personal vengeance.

Why? Why do people cling to these ideas of objective morality? It's all just a construct. There's just no need to have stringent un-bendable codes. Each situation is different, the more adaptable the system the better off it is. Now I don't know if you have this in Australia, but in America we have a thing called 'jury nullification'. This happens when the entire jury finds the law to be lacking in the particular situation, they vote the defendant innocent, even though he or she is guilty under the law. To clarify, this isn't a term that just describes what sometimes happens in spite of the law, IT IS PART OF THE LAW. The law is bendable because it does not arise out of some sort of eternal metaphysical code of right and wrong, but out of the needs of society.

But you don't seem to understand that I'm making a more general point. In this situation, the mother did cheat, and the kid may very well know what he did was wrong, in which case he should have been punished because it means that he won't do it next time. But that being said, I feel more sympathy for the kid because of his situation. Really the mother is the one who is really morally culpable, and she's the one who will know better for next time.

One final thing. People with disabilities should get special treatment. The special treatment should just be proportional to the disability. You wouldn't say a paraplegic is a bad person for not pulling someone out of a burning car would you? They can't. A person with Tourette's should be excused for shouting obscenities. Etc. Etc. If the autistic person doesn't understand what they're doing, they should be excused as well. Notice I am saying "doesn't understand what they're doing" which is different from simply being ignorant of the law.

First and foremost how is MS supposed to keep track of millions of people with all their disabilities? Or let everyone else know that we are supposed to treat them proportionally because of it? Would it be better if on his gamertag "excuse my achievements being out of order because I have autism." This is of course after we all are subjected to a battery of psychological exams before we are allowed to sign up to Live in the first place. Since you can't have people claiming they have a disability to get this special treatment in the first place. Or maybe MS could add a new type of gamer. Right now there is stuff like underground and family and such. Why not make a new server and call it something like Special? Then we can keep them away from the "normal" players and they can do whatever they want. Lets just take away one of the last places where people with mental disabilities are treated equally and fairly. Where they aren't subjected to being put in the special class and being told how different they are. I mean that is the only fair way to make sure they are protected from the "normals". And the "normals" are protected from them. Afterall that is why we have Special Olympics and Special classes. They can't keep up with the "normals" and the "normals" shouldn't have to slow down for them. So lets just keep them seperated all together.

I don't know about you but to me that sounds quite offensive. And by far worse than having you achievements taken away and getting smacked with a label of exactly what you are. A cheater regardless if you know better or not.

I'm sorry that facts offend you. They have the special Olympics because paraplegics in wheelchairs can't keep up with world-class sprinters. Life isn't fair, some people are better at some things than others. You don't need to build in a special system for autistic people, the company can basically do whatever it wants, if some mother complains that her child was unaware of what he was doing (imagine a scenario in which the mother didn't know, and the kid doesn't understand what cheating is), then they could give them special treatment. If the child is affected that much by it, the mother can send in letters to the company with proof, (i.e. a letter from her child's psychologist that says he's incapable of understanding what cheating is). I guess you also think that blind people shouldn't be allowed to bring their seeing eye dogs into restaurants that generally ban animals. That's a special case right? They should be treated as equals and be allowed to stumble around and spill hot coffee on themselves right? Do we really need to feed ourselves this lie that everyone is equal in spite of the facts?

You have misunderstood. You obviously missed the line "Lets just take away one of the last places where people with mental disabilities are treated equally and fairly. Or maybe I didn't make it clear. Do you think they want to be treated differently? Do you think the, to use your example, parpalegic who can't pull the person out of the car is happy about that fact? That people will ruffle his hair and say it's ok Jimmy we understand you couldn't help because you are special. Do you not think that they would love to be treated like everyone else inspite of their disability if it were physically possible? So there is one place they can and you want to take that away from them? Why because it hurts their feelings? Or because they aren't given an advantage? But instead put on a level playing field where they are just as capable to compete with anyone else disabled or not.

No. I think you're the one who misunderstands. I never said anything about people being forced into different gamerzones or anything like that. My one example is a person who is incapable of understanding what cheating is, what are the chances that person is going to have complex attitudes about fairness or equality? You're confusing fairness with blind adherence to codes without taking the situation at hand into account. This would be a person who just plays a game, and then has their achievements taken away and doesn't understand why. This is perhaps not the kid in the article, but there are people like that out there. Plus, I was only advocating that people with disabilities be given positive benefits. In fact, I think it is unfair that we should disregard extenuating circumstances. If your point is that it is unfair that there are disabled people then you need to take that up with god or mother nature. Society doesn't decide whether they are equal in their abilities, there is just a fact of the matter.

Your solution seems to be that we don't have a special Olympics at all, because we don't want people with disabilities to think that they're different. They might not like being different, but they are. If Jimmy the paraplegic is upset because people don't expect him to perform physical feats he is incapable of, then he's really upset about his condition, not about people. If you take that same person and then accuse him of being a coward for not helping, the FIRST thing he is going to do is point out that he was incapable of helping. If you think we should pit people in wheelchairs against world class sprinters, I can tell you right now that it isn't going to help their self esteem in the slightest when they get lapped.

I don't think the answer is to delude them about their lives, I think it is to try to accommodate them so that their lives are as fulfilling as possible. A person in a wheelchair needs to recognize and come to terms with his or her condition, and society needs to do its part to make sure that their disadvantages are compensated for. I don't know where you got the idea that I was suggesting that autistic people be given their own gamerzones or leagues in videogames. The reason why videogames are one of the last bastions for the disabled to be treated equally is BECAUSE THEY ARE EQUAL WHEN IT COMES TO VIDEOGAMES. Aside from people who have a disability that affects their motor function, most people can play videogames. No one needs help unless they actually need or want help. No one forces people to use wheelchairs, they could crawl if they really wanted to. It's just that no one in their right mind wants to. There's no reason to compensate for most people in videogames because they don't need compensation. Even the example I am talking about isn't at all a reference to the autistic child's ability to play, just their ability to understand what cheating is. It's a point about cheating and punishment, not about who should be allowed to play videogames. One could argue that it is unfair to other people because when they are put into that position, they will be punished, but this is clearly mistaken because the scenario wouldn't be the same unless they also had the same extenuating mental condition.

I was talking about one extreme and abstract case where the agent can't be held fully responsible for his or her actions. I didn't even say that he should be able to keep the achievements he or she cheated for, I just think that the situation would require a more nuanced reaction because of the special circumstances. I made no such claims that autistic people should have their own league. That's all you bro. Have you ever heard of a straw-man fallacy?

First if they are playing the games and getting the rewards there isn't a problem. Second read my post again. but this time really read it. Try and see if you can find the tone. I suggested the "special" not because it is a good idea because it isn't. But because that is the only way it would work to keep things fair for everybody. Oh right I forgot you are against people being treated fairly. Which leads us down a very slippery slope.

You must be daft. I know that you don't like treating people as special, and I made arguments in response to that. I also made arguments about what 'fairness' is and why your definition thereof is deficient. In fact I made arguments that the only way to treat people fairly is to take their circumstances into account. You're really just begging the question. Be careful, the last two sentences could be taken as implying that I am a German nationalist circa 1940, which as we all know is the sure sign of defeat in internet debates.

Really? Do I now? Or maybe I know a few disabled people who in spite of their disabilities would love nothing more than to be treated like everybody else. People who take the shittiest jobs (like dishwashing) for a few hours a week just so they can feel like they are "normal". Maybe what I have been saying all along is wouldn't it be nice if they didn't need special treatment. Perfect world sure. But to give them extra special treatment like you suggest is wrong. Seeing eye dog = neccesity. Special Olympics = great self esteem booster (among other things). Telling them it is ok to cheat = counterproductiveness.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

Snip snip-

Check the law: ignorance of it is no excuse for breaking it. Assuming the kid didn't know what he was doing was wrong (which, as I should point out, has nothing to do with the fact the kid is austistic; any young kid probably wouldn't know what cheating is...), the mature thing to do would've been to say "Well I didn't know that was cheating but I do for next time".

Now assuming the kid was incapable of understanding what he did was cheating, it would be up to the mother to make that call for him. The article quite clearly stated the mother warned her kid against what he was doing, so your argument really holds no water.

Don't get me wrong, there are some rules I don't agree with. For example, I believe it is disgusting down here in Australia gays are not allowed to get married. However, I fully believe that breaking the law is grounds for just punishment for doing so.

I'm so tired of people like you trying to put people with disabilities on some kind of pedastal. I've seen plenty of cases where people, without any form of disability, have done something with their Xbox they weren't aware was considered cheating. Why should this austistic kid get his points back over those other people?

You cannot have one set of rules for one person, and another set of rules for everyone else. As I've said before, the fact this kid was autistic has less than nothing to do with this case; any young kid probably wouldn't understand what this kid did would be considered as cheating. It would be up to the mother to prevent her kid from doing it, and if the mother also didn't know then that sucks for the kid, but by no means does that mean he should get his points back.

*sigh* If a mentally retarded person does something wrong, I expect them to get some form of punishment. If a normal person does something wrong, I expect them to get some form of punishment. Obviously, there would be differing circumstances in some cases (what pleading insanity is for, afterall). However, no one should be allowed to do something wrong and get off scott free.

But hey, it's good to see the mother's desperate attempt for sympathy has worked on you. Any young kid would probably look at this and say "Well I don't understand what I did was cheating", but just because the kid is austistic you feel he should be given a free ride.

Hell take it even further, you punish a little kid for anything and chances are they're going to have no idea what they did was wrong (until you punish them for it enough times, they get the picture).

My entire point was about agency. Ignorance of the law, and the incapability to understand the law are two different things. Do we punish a train for crashing and killing people? No, because it's a frigging train. If the autistic kid is capable of understanding the situation and just hasn't learned to, then yes, punishing him actually accomplishes something. But if he just isn't going to understand anyway, then there's no real point other than upholding some grand abstracted idea of 'Justice' or personal vengeance.

Why? Why do people cling to these ideas of objective morality? It's all just a construct. There's just no need to have stringent un-bendable codes. Each situation is different, the more adaptable the system the better off it is. Now I don't know if you have this in Australia, but in America we have a thing called 'jury nullification'. This happens when the entire jury finds the law to be lacking in the particular situation, they vote the defendant innocent, even though he or she is guilty under the law. To clarify, this isn't a term that just describes what sometimes happens in spite of the law, IT IS PART OF THE LAW. The law is bendable because it does not arise out of some sort of eternal metaphysical code of right and wrong, but out of the needs of society.

But you don't seem to understand that I'm making a more general point. In this situation, the mother did cheat, and the kid may very well know what he did was wrong, in which case he should have been punished because it means that he won't do it next time. But that being said, I feel more sympathy for the kid because of his situation. Really the mother is the one who is really morally culpable, and she's the one who will know better for next time.

One final thing. People with disabilities should get special treatment. The special treatment should just be proportional to the disability. You wouldn't say a paraplegic is a bad person for not pulling someone out of a burning car would you? They can't. A person with Tourette's should be excused for shouting obscenities. Etc. Etc. If the autistic person doesn't understand what they're doing, they should be excused as well. Notice I am saying "doesn't understand what they're doing" which is different from simply being ignorant of the law.

First and foremost how is MS supposed to keep track of millions of people with all their disabilities? Or let everyone else know that we are supposed to treat them proportionally because of it? Would it be better if on his gamertag "excuse my achievements being out of order because I have autism." This is of course after we all are subjected to a battery of psychological exams before we are allowed to sign up to Live in the first place. Since you can't have people claiming they have a disability to get this special treatment in the first place. Or maybe MS could add a new type of gamer. Right now there is stuff like underground and family and such. Why not make a new server and call it something like Special? Then we can keep them away from the "normal" players and they can do whatever they want. Lets just take away one of the last places where people with mental disabilities are treated equally and fairly. Where they aren't subjected to being put in the special class and being told how different they are. I mean that is the only fair way to make sure they are protected from the "normals". And the "normals" are protected from them. Afterall that is why we have Special Olympics and Special classes. They can't keep up with the "normals" and the "normals" shouldn't have to slow down for them. So lets just keep them seperated all together.

I don't know about you but to me that sounds quite offensive. And by far worse than having you achievements taken away and getting smacked with a label of exactly what you are. A cheater regardless if you know better or not.

I'm sorry that facts offend you. They have the special Olympics because paraplegics in wheelchairs can't keep up with world-class sprinters. Life isn't fair, some people are better at some things than others. You don't need to build in a special system for autistic people, the company can basically do whatever it wants, if some mother complains that her child was unaware of what he was doing (imagine a scenario in which the mother didn't know, and the kid doesn't understand what cheating is), then they could give them special treatment. If the child is affected that much by it, the mother can send in letters to the company with proof, (i.e. a letter from her child's psychologist that says he's incapable of understanding what cheating is). I guess you also think that blind people shouldn't be allowed to bring their seeing eye dogs into restaurants that generally ban animals. That's a special case right? They should be treated as equals and be allowed to stumble around and spill hot coffee on themselves right? Do we really need to feed ourselves this lie that everyone is equal in spite of the facts?

You have misunderstood. You obviously missed the line "Lets just take away one of the last places where people with mental disabilities are treated equally and fairly. Or maybe I didn't make it clear. Do you think they want to be treated differently? Do you think the, to use your example, parpalegic who can't pull the person out of the car is happy about that fact? That people will ruffle his hair and say it's ok Jimmy we understand you couldn't help because you are special. Do you not think that they would love to be treated like everyone else inspite of their disability if it were physically possible? So there is one place they can and you want to take that away from them? Why because it hurts their feelings? Or because they aren't given an advantage? But instead put on a level playing field where they are just as capable to compete with anyone else disabled or not.

No. I think you're the one who misunderstands. I never said anything about people being forced into different gamerzones or anything like that. My one example is a person who is incapable of understanding what cheating is, what are the chances that person is going to have complex attitudes about fairness or equality? You're confusing fairness with blind adherence to codes without taking the situation at hand into account. This would be a person who just plays a game, and then has their achievements taken away and doesn't understand why. This is perhaps not the kid in the article, but there are people like that out there. Plus, I was only advocating that people with disabilities be given positive benefits. In fact, I think it is unfair that we should disregard extenuating circumstances. If your point is that it is unfair that there are disabled people then you need to take that up with god or mother nature. Society doesn't decide whether they are equal in their abilities, there is just a fact of the matter.

Your solution seems to be that we don't have a special Olympics at all, because we don't want people with disabilities to think that they're different. They might not like being different, but they are. If Jimmy the paraplegic is upset because people don't expect him to perform physical feats he is incapable of, then he's really upset about his condition, not about people. If you take that same person and then accuse him of being a coward for not helping, the FIRST thing he is going to do is point out that he was incapable of helping. If you think we should pit people in wheelchairs against world class sprinters, I can tell you right now that it isn't going to help their self esteem in the slightest when they get lapped.

I don't think the answer is to delude them about their lives, I think it is to try to accommodate them so that their lives are as fulfilling as possible. A person in a wheelchair needs to recognize and come to terms with his or her condition, and society needs to do its part to make sure that their disadvantages are compensated for. I don't know where you got the idea that I was suggesting that autistic people be given their own gamerzones or leagues in videogames. The reason why videogames are one of the last bastions for the disabled to be treated equally is BECAUSE THEY ARE EQUAL WHEN IT COMES TO VIDEOGAMES. Aside from people who have a disability that affects their motor function, most people can play videogames. No one needs help unless they actually need or want help. No one forces people to use wheelchairs, they could crawl if they really wanted to. It's just that no one in their right mind wants to. There's no reason to compensate for most people in videogames because they don't need compensation. Even the example I am talking about isn't at all a reference to the autistic child's ability to play, just their ability to understand what cheating is. It's a point about cheating and punishment, not about who should be allowed to play videogames. One could argue that it is unfair to other people because when they are put into that position, they will be punished, but this is clearly mistaken because the scenario wouldn't be the same unless they also had the same extenuating mental condition.

I was talking about one extreme and abstract case where the agent can't be held fully responsible for his or her actions. I didn't even say that he should be able to keep the achievements he or she cheated for, I just think that the situation would require a more nuanced reaction because of the special circumstances. I made no such claims that autistic people should have their own league. That's all you bro. Have you ever heard of a straw-man fallacy?

First if they are playing the games and getting the rewards there isn't a problem. Second read my post again. but this time really read it. Try and see if you can find the tone. I suggested the "special" not because it is a good idea because it isn't. But because that is the only way it would work to keep things fair for everybody. Oh right I forgot you are against people being treated fairly. Which leads us down a very slippery slope.

You must be daft. I know that you don't like treating people as special, and I made arguments in response to that. I also made arguments about what 'fairness' is and why your definition thereof is deficient. In fact I made arguments that the only way to treat people fairly is to take their circumstances into account. You're really just begging the question. Be careful, the last two sentences could be taken as implying that I am a German nationalist circa 1940, which as we all know is the sure sign of defeat in internet debates.

Really? Do I now? Or maybe I know a few disabled people who in spite of their disabilities would love nothing more than to be treated like everybody else. People who take the shittiest jobs (like dishwashing) for a few hours a week just so they can feel like they are "normal". Maybe what I have been saying all along is wouldn't it be nice if they didn't need special treatment. Perfect world sure. But to give them extra special treatment like you suggest is wrong. Seeing eye dog = neccesity. Special Olympics = great self esteem booster (among other things). Telling them it is ok to cheat = counterproductiveness.

What part of my argument do you not get? I'm not saying that you should tell anyone it is okay to cheat. I'm saying there's no point in punishing someone who doesn't understand what cheating is, because they wouldn't understand why they are being punished. If your friends know what cheating is, then they should be held accountable. Some people don't though, (the ones with really severe mental illness), and it doesn't make any sense to punish them for something when they just don't know any better. You have to restrict their actions, sure, but they aren't going to learn anything from being punished.

If other autistic people who have it better off find this offensive, maybe they should really just be thankful that they don't have it that bad. The people I'm talking about aren't going to have their self esteem affected because they just don't know what's going on. The kid in the article probably isn't one of these people though, so he should be punished. I hope that makes things clear, but just to reiterate, I'm not telling anyone that it is okay to cheat. The people who shouldn't be punished wouldn't even understand me if I did tell them it was okay.

 

[squid5580]

Snip snip-

Check the law: ignorance of it is no excuse for breaking it. Assuming the kid didn't know what he was doing was wrong (which, as I should point out, has nothing to do with the fact the kid is austistic; any young kid probably wouldn't know what cheating is...), the mature thing to do would've been to say "Well I didn't know that was cheating but I do for next time".

Now assuming the kid was incapable of understanding what he did was cheating, it would be up to the mother to make that call for him. The article quite clearly stated the mother warned her kid against what he was doing, so your argument really holds no water.

Don't get me wrong, there are some rules I don't agree with. For example, I believe it is disgusting down here in Australia gays are not allowed to get married. However, I fully believe that breaking the law is grounds for just punishment for doing so.

I'm so tired of people like you trying to put people with disabilities on some kind of pedastal. I've seen plenty of cases where people, without any form of disability, have done something with their Xbox they weren't aware was considered cheating. Why should this austistic kid get his points back over those other people?

You cannot have one set of rules for one person, and another set of rules for everyone else. As I've said before, the fact this kid was autistic has less than nothing to do with this case; any young kid probably wouldn't understand what this kid did would be considered as cheating. It would be up to the mother to prevent her kid from doing it, and if the mother also didn't know then that sucks for the kid, but by no means does that mean he should get his points back.

*sigh* If a mentally retarded person does something wrong, I expect them to get some form of punishment. If a normal person does something wrong, I expect them to get some form of punishment. Obviously, there would be differing circumstances in some cases (what pleading insanity is for, afterall). However, no one should be allowed to do something wrong and get off scott free.

But hey, it's good to see the mother's desperate attempt for sympathy has worked on you. Any young kid would probably look at this and say "Well I don't understand what I did was cheating", but just because the kid is austistic you feel he should be given a free ride.

Hell take it even further, you punish a little kid for anything and chances are they're going to have no idea what they did was wrong (until you punish them for it enough times, they get the picture).

My entire point was about agency. Ignorance of the law, and the incapability to understand the law are two different things. Do we punish a train for crashing and killing people? No, because it's a frigging train. If the autistic kid is capable of understanding the situation and just hasn't learned to, then yes, punishing him actually accomplishes something. But if he just isn't going to understand anyway, then there's no real point other than upholding some grand abstracted idea of 'Justice' or personal vengeance.

Why? Why do people cling to these ideas of objective morality? It's all just a construct. There's just no need to have stringent un-bendable codes. Each situation is different, the more adaptable the system the better off it is. Now I don't know if you have this in Australia, but in America we have a thing called 'jury nullification'. This happens when the entire jury finds the law to be lacking in the particular situation, they vote the defendant innocent, even though he or she is guilty under the law. To clarify, this isn't a term that just describes what sometimes happens in spite of the law, IT IS PART OF THE LAW. The law is bendable because it does not arise out of some sort of eternal metaphysical code of right and wrong, but out of the needs of society.

But you don't seem to understand that I'm making a more general point. In this situation, the mother did cheat, and the kid may very well know what he did was wrong, in which case he should have been punished because it means that he won't do it next time. But that being said, I feel more sympathy for the kid because of his situation. Really the mother is the one who is really morally culpable, and she's the one who will know better for next time.

One final thing. People with disabilities should get special treatment. The special treatment should just be proportional to the disability. You wouldn't say a paraplegic is a bad person for not pulling someone out of a burning car would you? They can't. A person with Tourette's should be excused for shouting obscenities. Etc. Etc. If the autistic person doesn't understand what they're doing, they should be excused as well. Notice I am saying "doesn't understand what they're doing" which is different from simply being ignorant of the law.

First and foremost how is MS supposed to keep track of millions of people with all their disabilities? Or let everyone else know that we are supposed to treat them proportionally because of it? Would it be better if on his gamertag "excuse my achievements being out of order because I have autism." This is of course after we all are subjected to a battery of psychological exams before we are allowed to sign up to Live in the first place. Since you can't have people claiming they have a disability to get this special treatment in the first place. Or maybe MS could add a new type of gamer. Right now there is stuff like underground and family and such. Why not make a new server and call it something like Special? Then we can keep them away from the "normal" players and they can do whatever they want. Lets just take away one of the last places where people with mental disabilities are treated equally and fairly. Where they aren't subjected to being put in the special class and being told how different they are. I mean that is the only fair way to make sure they are protected from the "normals". And the "normals" are protected from them. Afterall that is why we have Special Olympics and Special classes. They can't keep up with the "normals" and the "normals" shouldn't have to slow down for them. So lets just keep them seperated all together.

I don't know about you but to me that sounds quite offensive. And by far worse than having you achievements taken away and getting smacked with a label of exactly what you are. A cheater regardless if you know better or not.

I'm sorry that facts offend you. They have the special Olympics because paraplegics in wheelchairs can't keep up with world-class sprinters. Life isn't fair, some people are better at some things than others. You don't need to build in a special system for autistic people, the company can basically do whatever it wants, if some mother complains that her child was unaware of what he was doing (imagine a scenario in which the mother didn't know, and the kid doesn't understand what cheating is), then they could give them special treatment. If the child is affected that much by it, the mother can send in letters to the company with proof, (i.e. a letter from her child's psychologist that says he's incapable of understanding what cheating is). I guess you also think that blind people shouldn't be allowed to bring their seeing eye dogs into restaurants that generally ban animals. That's a special case right? They should be treated as equals and be allowed to stumble around and spill hot coffee on themselves right? Do we really need to feed ourselves this lie that everyone is equal in spite of the facts?

You have misunderstood. You obviously missed the line "Lets just take away one of the last places where people with mental disabilities are treated equally and fairly. Or maybe I didn't make it clear. Do you think they want to be treated differently? Do you think the, to use your example, parpalegic who can't pull the person out of the car is happy about that fact? That people will ruffle his hair and say it's ok Jimmy we understand you couldn't help because you are special. Do you not think that they would love to be treated like everyone else inspite of their disability if it were physically possible? So there is one place they can and you want to take that away from them? Why because it hurts their feelings? Or because they aren't given an advantage? But instead put on a level playing field where they are just as capable to compete with anyone else disabled or not.

No. I think you're the one who misunderstands. I never said anything about people being forced into different gamerzones or anything like that. My one example is a person who is incapable of understanding what cheating is, what are the chances that person is going to have complex attitudes about fairness or equality? You're confusing fairness with blind adherence to codes without taking the situation at hand into account. This would be a person who just plays a game, and then has their achievements taken away and doesn't understand why. This is perhaps not the kid in the article, but there are people like that out there. Plus, I was only advocating that people with disabilities be given positive benefits. In fact, I think it is unfair that we should disregard extenuating circumstances. If your point is that it is unfair that there are disabled people then you need to take that up with god or mother nature. Society doesn't decide whether they are equal in their abilities, there is just a fact of the matter.

Your solution seems to be that we don't have a special Olympics at all, because we don't want people with disabilities to think that they're different. They might not like being different, but they are. If Jimmy the paraplegic is upset because people don't expect him to perform physical feats he is incapable of, then he's really upset about his condition, not about people. If you take that same person and then accuse him of being a coward for not helping, the FIRST thing he is going to do is point out that he was incapable of helping. If you think we should pit people in wheelchairs against world class sprinters, I can tell you right now that it isn't going to help their self esteem in the slightest when they get lapped.

I don't think the answer is to delude them about their lives, I think it is to try to accommodate them so that their lives are as fulfilling as possible. A person in a wheelchair needs to recognize and come to terms with his or her condition, and society needs to do its part to make sure that their disadvantages are compensated for. I don't know where you got the idea that I was suggesting that autistic people be given their own gamerzones or leagues in videogames. The reason why videogames are one of the last bastions for the disabled to be treated equally is BECAUSE THEY ARE EQUAL WHEN IT COMES TO VIDEOGAMES. Aside from people who have a disability that affects their motor function, most people can play videogames. No one needs help unless they actually need or want help. No one forces people to use wheelchairs, they could crawl if they really wanted to. It's just that no one in their right mind wants to. There's no reason to compensate for most people in videogames because they don't need compensation. Even the example I am talking about isn't at all a reference to the autistic child's ability to play, just their ability to understand what cheating is. It's a point about cheating and punishment, not about who should be allowed to play videogames. One could argue that it is unfair to other people because when they are put into that position, they will be punished, but this is clearly mistaken because the scenario wouldn't be the same unless they also had the same extenuating mental condition.

I was talking about one extreme and abstract case where the agent can't be held fully responsible for his or her actions. I didn't even say that he should be able to keep the achievements he or she cheated for, I just think that the situation would require a more nuanced reaction because of the special circumstances. I made no such claims that autistic people should have their own league. That's all you bro. Have you ever heard of a straw-man fallacy?

First if they are playing the games and getting the rewards there isn't a problem. Second read my post again. but this time really read it. Try and see if you can find the tone. I suggested the "special" not because it is a good idea because it isn't. But because that is the only way it would work to keep things fair for everybody. Oh right I forgot you are against people being treated fairly. Which leads us down a very slippery slope.

You must be daft. I know that you don't like treating people as special, and I made arguments in response to that. I also made arguments about what 'fairness' is and why your definition thereof is deficient. In fact I made arguments that the only way to treat people fairly is to take their circumstances into account. You're really just begging the question. Be careful, the last two sentences could be taken as implying that I am a German nationalist circa 1940, which as we all know is the sure sign of defeat in internet debates.

Really? Do I now? Or maybe I know a few disabled people who in spite of their disabilities would love nothing more than to be treated like everybody else. People who take the shittiest jobs (like dishwashing) for a few hours a week just so they can feel like they are "normal". Maybe what I have been saying all along is wouldn't it be nice if they didn't need special treatment. Perfect world sure. But to give them extra special treatment like you suggest is wrong. Seeing eye dog = neccesity. Special Olympics = great self esteem booster (among other things). Telling them it is ok to cheat = counterproductiveness.

What part of my argument do you not get? I'm not saying that you should tell anyone it is okay to cheat. I'm saying there's no point in punishing someone who doesn't understand what cheating is, because they wouldn't understand why they are being punished. If your friends know what cheating is, then they should be held accountable. Some people don't though, (the ones with really severe mental illness), and it doesn't make any sense to punish them for something when they just don't know any better. You have to restrict their actions, sure, but they aren't going to learn anything from being punished.

If other autistic people who have it better off find this offensive, maybe they should really just be thankful that they don't have it that bad. The people I'm talking about aren't going to have their self esteem affected because they just don't know what's going on. The kid in the article probably isn't one of these people though, so he should be punished. I hope that makes things clear, but just to reiterate, I'm not telling anyone that it is okay to cheat. The people who shouldn't be punished wouldn't even understand me if I did tell them it was okay.

I guess the part where the punishment is meant to teach them something. We have laws and rules with punishment not to teach someone something but to deter them from said actions. And to protect the law abiding citizens. Give them a sense of security. Saying that because for whatever reason those rules don't apply does neither. Even pleading insanity doesn't mean they get to walk scott free. They just end up in a different type of prison.

 

[Bernzz]

So he cheats, Microsoft is labelled as evil because of the mother using his autism in a certain way to paint them so, and their reward is a new Xbox Live account? Fuck that reward, he should buy it himself. He cheated, tis his fault.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

Snip snip-

Check the law: ignorance of it is no excuse for breaking it. Assuming the kid didn't know what he was doing was wrong (which, as I should point out, has nothing to do with the fact the kid is austistic; any young kid probably wouldn't know what cheating is...), the mature thing to do would've been to say "Well I didn't know that was cheating but I do for next time".

Now assuming the kid was incapable of understanding what he did was cheating, it would be up to the mother to make that call for him. The article quite clearly stated the mother warned her kid against what he was doing, so your argument really holds no water.

Don't get me wrong, there are some rules I don't agree with. For example, I believe it is disgusting down here in Australia gays are not allowed to get married. However, I fully believe that breaking the law is grounds for just punishment for doing so.

I'm so tired of people like you trying to put people with disabilities on some kind of pedastal. I've seen plenty of cases where people, without any form of disability, have done something with their Xbox they weren't aware was considered cheating. Why should this austistic kid get his points back over those other people?

You cannot have one set of rules for one person, and another set of rules for everyone else. As I've said before, the fact this kid was autistic has less than nothing to do with this case; any young kid probably wouldn't understand what this kid did would be considered as cheating. It would be up to the mother to prevent her kid from doing it, and if the mother also didn't know then that sucks for the kid, but by no means does that mean he should get his points back.

*sigh* If a mentally retarded person does something wrong, I expect them to get some form of punishment. If a normal person does something wrong, I expect them to get some form of punishment. Obviously, there would be differing circumstances in some cases (what pleading insanity is for, afterall). However, no one should be allowed to do something wrong and get off scott free.

But hey, it's good to see the mother's desperate attempt for sympathy has worked on you. Any young kid would probably look at this and say "Well I don't understand what I did was cheating", but just because the kid is austistic you feel he should be given a free ride.

Hell take it even further, you punish a little kid for anything and chances are they're going to have no idea what they did was wrong (until you punish them for it enough times, they get the picture).

My entire point was about agency. Ignorance of the law, and the incapability to understand the law are two different things. Do we punish a train for crashing and killing people? No, because it's a frigging train. If the autistic kid is capable of understanding the situation and just hasn't learned to, then yes, punishing him actually accomplishes something. But if he just isn't going to understand anyway, then there's no real point other than upholding some grand abstracted idea of 'Justice' or personal vengeance.

Why? Why do people cling to these ideas of objective morality? It's all just a construct. There's just no need to have stringent un-bendable codes. Each situation is different, the more adaptable the system the better off it is. Now I don't know if you have this in Australia, but in America we have a thing called 'jury nullification'. This happens when the entire jury finds the law to be lacking in the particular situation, they vote the defendant innocent, even though he or she is guilty under the law. To clarify, this isn't a term that just describes what sometimes happens in spite of the law, IT IS PART OF THE LAW. The law is bendable because it does not arise out of some sort of eternal metaphysical code of right and wrong, but out of the needs of society.

But you don't seem to understand that I'm making a more general point. In this situation, the mother did cheat, and the kid may very well know what he did was wrong, in which case he should have been punished because it means that he won't do it next time. But that being said, I feel more sympathy for the kid because of his situation. Really the mother is the one who is really morally culpable, and she's the one who will know better for next time.

One final thing. People with disabilities should get special treatment. The special treatment should just be proportional to the disability. You wouldn't say a paraplegic is a bad person for not pulling someone out of a burning car would you? They can't. A person with Tourette's should be excused for shouting obscenities. Etc. Etc. If the autistic person doesn't understand what they're doing, they should be excused as well. Notice I am saying "doesn't understand what they're doing" which is different from simply being ignorant of the law.

First and foremost how is MS supposed to keep track of millions of people with all their disabilities? Or let everyone else know that we are supposed to treat them proportionally because of it? Would it be better if on his gamertag "excuse my achievements being out of order because I have autism." This is of course after we all are subjected to a battery of psychological exams before we are allowed to sign up to Live in the first place. Since you can't have people claiming they have a disability to get this special treatment in the first place. Or maybe MS could add a new type of gamer. Right now there is stuff like underground and family and such. Why not make a new server and call it something like Special? Then we can keep them away from the "normal" players and they can do whatever they want. Lets just take away one of the last places where people with mental disabilities are treated equally and fairly. Where they aren't subjected to being put in the special class and being told how different they are. I mean that is the only fair way to make sure they are protected from the "normals". And the "normals" are protected from them. Afterall that is why we have Special Olympics and Special classes. They can't keep up with the "normals" and the "normals" shouldn't have to slow down for them. So lets just keep them seperated all together.

I don't know about you but to me that sounds quite offensive. And by far worse than having you achievements taken away and getting smacked with a label of exactly what you are. A cheater regardless if you know better or not.

I'm sorry that facts offend you. They have the special Olympics because paraplegics in wheelchairs can't keep up with world-class sprinters. Life isn't fair, some people are better at some things than others. You don't need to build in a special system for autistic people, the company can basically do whatever it wants, if some mother complains that her child was unaware of what he was doing (imagine a scenario in which the mother didn't know, and the kid doesn't understand what cheating is), then they could give them special treatment. If the child is affected that much by it, the mother can send in letters to the company with proof, (i.e. a letter from her child's psychologist that says he's incapable of understanding what cheating is). I guess you also think that blind people shouldn't be allowed to bring their seeing eye dogs into restaurants that generally ban animals. That's a special case right? They should be treated as equals and be allowed to stumble around and spill hot coffee on themselves right? Do we really need to feed ourselves this lie that everyone is equal in spite of the facts?

You have misunderstood. You obviously missed the line "Lets just take away one of the last places where people with mental disabilities are treated equally and fairly. Or maybe I didn't make it clear. Do you think they want to be treated differently? Do you think the, to use your example, parpalegic who can't pull the person out of the car is happy about that fact? That people will ruffle his hair and say it's ok Jimmy we understand you couldn't help because you are special. Do you not think that they would love to be treated like everyone else inspite of their disability if it were physically possible? So there is one place they can and you want to take that away from them? Why because it hurts their feelings? Or because they aren't given an advantage? But instead put on a level playing field where they are just as capable to compete with anyone else disabled or not.

No. I think you're the one who misunderstands. I never said anything about people being forced into different gamerzones or anything like that. My one example is a person who is incapable of understanding what cheating is, what are the chances that person is going to have complex attitudes about fairness or equality? You're confusing fairness with blind adherence to codes without taking the situation at hand into account. This would be a person who just plays a game, and then has their achievements taken away and doesn't understand why. This is perhaps not the kid in the article, but there are people like that out there. Plus, I was only advocating that people with disabilities be given positive benefits. In fact, I think it is unfair that we should disregard extenuating circumstances. If your point is that it is unfair that there are disabled people then you need to take that up with god or mother nature. Society doesn't decide whether they are equal in their abilities, there is just a fact of the matter.

Your solution seems to be that we don't have a special Olympics at all, because we don't want people with disabilities to think that they're different. They might not like being different, but they are. If Jimmy the paraplegic is upset because people don't expect him to perform physical feats he is incapable of, then he's really upset about his condition, not about people. If you take that same person and then accuse him of being a coward for not helping, the FIRST thing he is going to do is point out that he was incapable of helping. If you think we should pit people in wheelchairs against world class sprinters, I can tell you right now that it isn't going to help their self esteem in the slightest when they get lapped.

I don't think the answer is to delude them about their lives, I think it is to try to accommodate them so that their lives are as fulfilling as possible. A person in a wheelchair needs to recognize and come to terms with his or her condition, and society needs to do its part to make sure that their disadvantages are compensated for. I don't know where you got the idea that I was suggesting that autistic people be given their own gamerzones or leagues in videogames. The reason why videogames are one of the last bastions for the disabled to be treated equally is BECAUSE THEY ARE EQUAL WHEN IT COMES TO VIDEOGAMES. Aside from people who have a disability that affects their motor function, most people can play videogames. No one needs help unless they actually need or want help. No one forces people to use wheelchairs, they could crawl if they really wanted to. It's just that no one in their right mind wants to. There's no reason to compensate for most people in videogames because they don't need compensation. Even the example I am talking about isn't at all a reference to the autistic child's ability to play, just their ability to understand what cheating is. It's a point about cheating and punishment, not about who should be allowed to play videogames. One could argue that it is unfair to other people because when they are put into that position, they will be punished, but this is clearly mistaken because the scenario wouldn't be the same unless they also had the same extenuating mental condition.

I was talking about one extreme and abstract case where the agent can't be held fully responsible for his or her actions. I didn't even say that he should be able to keep the achievements he or she cheated for, I just think that the situation would require a more nuanced reaction because of the special circumstances. I made no such claims that autistic people should have their own league. That's all you bro. Have you ever heard of a straw-man fallacy?

First if they are playing the games and getting the rewards there isn't a problem. Second read my post again. but this time really read it. Try and see if you can find the tone. I suggested the "special" not because it is a good idea because it isn't. But because that is the only way it would work to keep things fair for everybody. Oh right I forgot you are against people being treated fairly. Which leads us down a very slippery slope.

You must be daft. I know that you don't like treating people as special, and I made arguments in response to that. I also made arguments about what 'fairness' is and why your definition thereof is deficient. In fact I made arguments that the only way to treat people fairly is to take their circumstances into account. You're really just begging the question. Be careful, the last two sentences could be taken as implying that I am a German nationalist circa 1940, which as we all know is the sure sign of defeat in internet debates.

Really? Do I now? Or maybe I know a few disabled people who in spite of their disabilities would love nothing more than to be treated like everybody else. People who take the shittiest jobs (like dishwashing) for a few hours a week just so they can feel like they are "normal". Maybe what I have been saying all along is wouldn't it be nice if they didn't need special treatment. Perfect world sure. But to give them extra special treatment like you suggest is wrong. Seeing eye dog = neccesity. Special Olympics = great self esteem booster (among other things). Telling them it is ok to cheat = counterproductiveness.

What part of my argument do you not get? I'm not saying that you should tell anyone it is okay to cheat. I'm saying there's no point in punishing someone who doesn't understand what cheating is, because they wouldn't understand why they are being punished. If your friends know what cheating is, then they should be held accountable. Some people don't though, (the ones with really severe mental illness), and it doesn't make any sense to punish them for something when they just don't know any better. You have to restrict their actions, sure, but they aren't going to learn anything from being punished.

If other autistic people who have it better off find this offensive, maybe they should really just be thankful that they don't have it that bad. The people I'm talking about aren't going to have their self esteem affected because they just don't know what's going on. The kid in the article probably isn't one of these people though, so he should be punished. I hope that makes things clear, but just to reiterate, I'm not telling anyone that it is okay to cheat. The people who shouldn't be punished wouldn't even understand me if I did tell them it was okay.

I guess the part where the punishment is meant to teach them something. We have laws and rules with punishment not to teach someone something but to deter them from said actions. And to protect the law abiding citizens. Give them a sense of security. Saying that because for whatever reason those rules don't apply does neither. Even pleading insanity doesn't mean they get to walk scott free. They just end up in a different type of prison.

What did you think I meant by 'teach them something?', give them a nice lecture and let them take notes? I meant that a person who doesn't have any understanding of the situation ISN'T GOING TO BE DETERRED BY THE PUNISHMENT BECAUSE THEY WON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND THAT THEY ARE BEING PUNISHED (this is in caps because it is the important part). No, we don't punish some lunatic who goes off shooting people because he thinks they are the demons in his head, we HELP HIM. We don't send him to prison, we send him to a MENTAL CARE FACILITY, which is most decidedly not a prison because it also helps people who are there voluntarily. When (or if) that person becomes sane again, they will probably feel instant remorse at their actions. There is a huge difference between punishing someone and restraining them for their own good and the good of others. The severely autistic person in question should definitely be restrained, but there's no point in punishing them because they don't know what they did and they wouldn't be deterred from doing it again, you'd really just be causing them suffering for no apparent reason except to abide by some abstract (and rather deviant) idea of what fairness is.

 

[squid5580]

Snip snip-

Check the law: ignorance of it is no excuse for breaking it. Assuming the kid didn't know what he was doing was wrong (which, as I should point out, has nothing to do with the fact the kid is austistic; any young kid probably wouldn't know what cheating is...), the mature thing to do would've been to say "Well I didn't know that was cheating but I do for next time".

Now assuming the kid was incapable of understanding what he did was cheating, it would be up to the mother to make that call for him. The article quite clearly stated the mother warned her kid against what he was doing, so your argument really holds no water.

Don't get me wrong, there are some rules I don't agree with. For example, I believe it is disgusting down here in Australia gays are not allowed to get married. However, I fully believe that breaking the law is grounds for just punishment for doing so.

I'm so tired of people like you trying to put people with disabilities on some kind of pedastal. I've seen plenty of cases where people, without any form of disability, have done something with their Xbox they weren't aware was considered cheating. Why should this austistic kid get his points back over those other people?

You cannot have one set of rules for one person, and another set of rules for everyone else. As I've said before, the fact this kid was autistic has less than nothing to do with this case; any young kid probably wouldn't understand what this kid did would be considered as cheating. It would be up to the mother to prevent her kid from doing it, and if the mother also didn't know then that sucks for the kid, but by no means does that mean he should get his points back.

*sigh* If a mentally retarded person does something wrong, I expect them to get some form of punishment. If a normal person does something wrong, I expect them to get some form of punishment. Obviously, there would be differing circumstances in some cases (what pleading insanity is for, afterall). However, no one should be allowed to do something wrong and get off scott free.

But hey, it's good to see the mother's desperate attempt for sympathy has worked on you. Any young kid would probably look at this and say "Well I don't understand what I did was cheating", but just because the kid is austistic you feel he should be given a free ride.

Hell take it even further, you punish a little kid for anything and chances are they're going to have no idea what they did was wrong (until you punish them for it enough times, they get the picture).

My entire point was about agency. Ignorance of the law, and the incapability to understand the law are two different things. Do we punish a train for crashing and killing people? No, because it's a frigging train. If the autistic kid is capable of understanding the situation and just hasn't learned to, then yes, punishing him actually accomplishes something. But if he just isn't going to understand anyway, then there's no real point other than upholding some grand abstracted idea of 'Justice' or personal vengeance.

Why? Why do people cling to these ideas of objective morality? It's all just a construct. There's just no need to have stringent un-bendable codes. Each situation is different, the more adaptable the system the better off it is. Now I don't know if you have this in Australia, but in America we have a thing called 'jury nullification'. This happens when the entire jury finds the law to be lacking in the particular situation, they vote the defendant innocent, even though he or she is guilty under the law. To clarify, this isn't a term that just describes what sometimes happens in spite of the law, IT IS PART OF THE LAW. The law is bendable because it does not arise out of some sort of eternal metaphysical code of right and wrong, but out of the needs of society.

But you don't seem to understand that I'm making a more general point. In this situation, the mother did cheat, and the kid may very well know what he did was wrong, in which case he should have been punished because it means that he won't do it next time. But that being said, I feel more sympathy for the kid because of his situation. Really the mother is the one who is really morally culpable, and she's the one who will know better for next time.

One final thing. People with disabilities should get special treatment. The special treatment should just be proportional to the disability. You wouldn't say a paraplegic is a bad person for not pulling someone out of a burning car would you? They can't. A person with Tourette's should be excused for shouting obscenities. Etc. Etc. If the autistic person doesn't understand what they're doing, they should be excused as well. Notice I am saying "doesn't understand what they're doing" which is different from simply being ignorant of the law.

First and foremost how is MS supposed to keep track of millions of people with all their disabilities? Or let everyone else know that we are supposed to treat them proportionally because of it? Would it be better if on his gamertag "excuse my achievements being out of order because I have autism." This is of course after we all are subjected to a battery of psychological exams before we are allowed to sign up to Live in the first place. Since you can't have people claiming they have a disability to get this special treatment in the first place. Or maybe MS could add a new type of gamer. Right now there is stuff like underground and family and such. Why not make a new server and call it something like Special? Then we can keep them away from the "normal" players and they can do whatever they want. Lets just take away one of the last places where people with mental disabilities are treated equally and fairly. Where they aren't subjected to being put in the special class and being told how different they are. I mean that is the only fair way to make sure they are protected from the "normals". And the "normals" are protected from them. Afterall that is why we have Special Olympics and Special classes. They can't keep up with the "normals" and the "normals" shouldn't have to slow down for them. So lets just keep them seperated all together.

I don't know about you but to me that sounds quite offensive. And by far worse than having you achievements taken away and getting smacked with a label of exactly what you are. A cheater regardless if you know better or not.

I'm sorry that facts offend you. They have the special Olympics because paraplegics in wheelchairs can't keep up with world-class sprinters. Life isn't fair, some people are better at some things than others. You don't need to build in a special system for autistic people, the company can basically do whatever it wants, if some mother complains that her child was unaware of what he was doing (imagine a scenario in which the mother didn't know, and the kid doesn't understand what cheating is), then they could give them special treatment. If the child is affected that much by it, the mother can send in letters to the company with proof, (i.e. a letter from her child's psychologist that says he's incapable of understanding what cheating is). I guess you also think that blind people shouldn't be allowed to bring their seeing eye dogs into restaurants that generally ban animals. That's a special case right? They should be treated as equals and be allowed to stumble around and spill hot coffee on themselves right? Do we really need to feed ourselves this lie that everyone is equal in spite of the facts?

You have misunderstood. You obviously missed the line "Lets just take away one of the last places where people with mental disabilities are treated equally and fairly. Or maybe I didn't make it clear. Do you think they want to be treated differently? Do you think the, to use your example, parpalegic who can't pull the person out of the car is happy about that fact? That people will ruffle his hair and say it's ok Jimmy we understand you couldn't help because you are special. Do you not think that they would love to be treated like everyone else inspite of their disability if it were physically possible? So there is one place they can and you want to take that away from them? Why because it hurts their feelings? Or because they aren't given an advantage? But instead put on a level playing field where they are just as capable to compete with anyone else disabled or not.

No. I think you're the one who misunderstands. I never said anything about people being forced into different gamerzones or anything like that. My one example is a person who is incapable of understanding what cheating is, what are the chances that person is going to have complex attitudes about fairness or equality? You're confusing fairness with blind adherence to codes without taking the situation at hand into account. This would be a person who just plays a game, and then has their achievements taken away and doesn't understand why. This is perhaps not the kid in the article, but there are people like that out there. Plus, I was only advocating that people with disabilities be given positive benefits. In fact, I think it is unfair that we should disregard extenuating circumstances. If your point is that it is unfair that there are disabled people then you need to take that up with god or mother nature. Society doesn't decide whether they are equal in their abilities, there is just a fact of the matter.

Your solution seems to be that we don't have a special Olympics at all, because we don't want people with disabilities to think that they're different. They might not like being different, but they are. If Jimmy the paraplegic is upset because people don't expect him to perform physical feats he is incapable of, then he's really upset about his condition, not about people. If you take that same person and then accuse him of being a coward for not helping, the FIRST thing he is going to do is point out that he was incapable of helping. If you think we should pit people in wheelchairs against world class sprinters, I can tell you right now that it isn't going to help their self esteem in the slightest when they get lapped.

I don't think the answer is to delude them about their lives, I think it is to try to accommodate them so that their lives are as fulfilling as possible. A person in a wheelchair needs to recognize and come to terms with his or her condition, and society needs to do its part to make sure that their disadvantages are compensated for. I don't know where you got the idea that I was suggesting that autistic people be given their own gamerzones or leagues in videogames. The reason why videogames are one of the last bastions for the disabled to be treated equally is BECAUSE THEY ARE EQUAL WHEN IT COMES TO VIDEOGAMES. Aside from people who have a disability that affects their motor function, most people can play videogames. No one needs help unless they actually need or want help. No one forces people to use wheelchairs, they could crawl if they really wanted to. It's just that no one in their right mind wants to. There's no reason to compensate for most people in videogames because they don't need compensation. Even the example I am talking about isn't at all a reference to the autistic child's ability to play, just their ability to understand what cheating is. It's a point about cheating and punishment, not about who should be allowed to play videogames. One could argue that it is unfair to other people because when they are put into that position, they will be punished, but this is clearly mistaken because the scenario wouldn't be the same unless they also had the same extenuating mental condition.

I was talking about one extreme and abstract case where the agent can't be held fully responsible for his or her actions. I didn't even say that he should be able to keep the achievements he or she cheated for, I just think that the situation would require a more nuanced reaction because of the special circumstances. I made no such claims that autistic people should have their own league. That's all you bro. Have you ever heard of a straw-man fallacy?

First if they are playing the games and getting the rewards there isn't a problem. Second read my post again. but this time really read it. Try and see if you can find the tone. I suggested the "special" not because it is a good idea because it isn't. But because that is the only way it would work to keep things fair for everybody. Oh right I forgot you are against people being treated fairly. Which leads us down a very slippery slope.

You must be daft. I know that you don't like treating people as special, and I made arguments in response to that. I also made arguments about what 'fairness' is and why your definition thereof is deficient. In fact I made arguments that the only way to treat people fairly is to take their circumstances into account. You're really just begging the question. Be careful, the last two sentences could be taken as implying that I am a German nationalist circa 1940, which as we all know is the sure sign of defeat in internet debates.

Really? Do I now? Or maybe I know a few disabled people who in spite of their disabilities would love nothing more than to be treated like everybody else. People who take the shittiest jobs (like dishwashing) for a few hours a week just so they can feel like they are "normal". Maybe what I have been saying all along is wouldn't it be nice if they didn't need special treatment. Perfect world sure. But to give them extra special treatment like you suggest is wrong. Seeing eye dog = neccesity. Special Olympics = great self esteem booster (among other things). Telling them it is ok to cheat = counterproductiveness.

What part of my argument do you not get? I'm not saying that you should tell anyone it is okay to cheat. I'm saying there's no point in punishing someone who doesn't understand what cheating is, because they wouldn't understand why they are being punished. If your friends know what cheating is, then they should be held accountable. Some people don't though, (the ones with really severe mental illness), and it doesn't make any sense to punish them for something when they just don't know any better. You have to restrict their actions, sure, but they aren't going to learn anything from being punished.

If other autistic people who have it better off find this offensive, maybe they should really just be thankful that they don't have it that bad. The people I'm talking about aren't going to have their self esteem affected because they just don't know what's going on. The kid in the article probably isn't one of these people though, so he should be punished. I hope that makes things clear, but just to reiterate, I'm not telling anyone that it is okay to cheat. The people who shouldn't be punished wouldn't even understand me if I did tell them it was okay.

I guess the part where the punishment is meant to teach them something. We have laws and rules with punishment not to teach someone something but to deter them from said actions. And to protect the law abiding citizens. Give them a sense of security. Saying that because for whatever reason those rules don't apply does neither. Even pleading insanity doesn't mean they get to walk scott free. They just end up in a different type of prison.

What did you think I meant by 'teach them something?', give them a nice lecture and let them take notes? I meant that a person who doesn't have any understanding of the situation ISN'T GOING TO BE DETERRED BY THE PUNISHMENT BECAUSE THEY WON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND THAT THEY ARE BEING PUNISHED (this is in caps because it is the important part). No, we don't punish some lunatic who goes off shooting people because he thinks they are the demons in his head, we HELP HIM. We don't send him to prison, we send him to a MENTAL CARE FACILITY, which is most decidedly not a prison because it also helps people who are there voluntarily. When (or if) that person becomes sane again, they will probably feel instant remorse at their actions. There is a huge difference between punishing someone and restraining them for their own good and the good of others. The severely autistic person in question should definitely be restrained, but there's no point in punishing them because they don't know what they did and they wouldn't be deterred from doing it again, you'd really just be causing them suffering for no apparent reason except to abide by some abstract (and rather deviant) idea of what fairness is.

And how would you restrain them? Take them off XBL completely? Make a special server just for him and people like him? Or maybe take away his achievement points and put a label like cheater on his gamertag so everytime he logs on he is reminded what he did was wrong? This of course is with a letter explaining what actions are wrong. Maybe MS could make it his motto for him. Or do you expect MS to send someone to his house to personally monitor his actions and guide him?

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

Snip snip-

Check the law: ignorance of it is no excuse for breaking it. Assuming the kid didn't know what he was doing was wrong (which, as I should point out, has nothing to do with the fact the kid is austistic; any young kid probably wouldn't know what cheating is...), the mature thing to do would've been to say "Well I didn't know that was cheating but I do for next time".

Now assuming the kid was incapable of understanding what he did was cheating, it would be up to the mother to make that call for him. The article quite clearly stated the mother warned her kid against what he was doing, so your argument really holds no water.

Don't get me wrong, there are some rules I don't agree with. For example, I believe it is disgusting down here in Australia gays are not allowed to get married. However, I fully believe that breaking the law is grounds for just punishment for doing so.

I'm so tired of people like you trying to put people with disabilities on some kind of pedastal. I've seen plenty of cases where people, without any form of disability, have done something with their Xbox they weren't aware was considered cheating. Why should this austistic kid get his points back over those other people?

You cannot have one set of rules for one person, and another set of rules for everyone else. As I've said before, the fact this kid was autistic has less than nothing to do with this case; any young kid probably wouldn't understand what this kid did would be considered as cheating. It would be up to the mother to prevent her kid from doing it, and if the mother also didn't know then that sucks for the kid, but by no means does that mean he should get his points back.

*sigh* If a mentally retarded person does something wrong, I expect them to get some form of punishment. If a normal person does something wrong, I expect them to get some form of punishment. Obviously, there would be differing circumstances in some cases (what pleading insanity is for, afterall). However, no one should be allowed to do something wrong and get off scott free.

But hey, it's good to see the mother's desperate attempt for sympathy has worked on you. Any young kid would probably look at this and say "Well I don't understand what I did was cheating", but just because the kid is austistic you feel he should be given a free ride.

Hell take it even further, you punish a little kid for anything and chances are they're going to have no idea what they did was wrong (until you punish them for it enough times, they get the picture).

My entire point was about agency. Ignorance of the law, and the incapability to understand the law are two different things. Do we punish a train for crashing and killing people? No, because it's a frigging train. If the autistic kid is capable of understanding the situation and just hasn't learned to, then yes, punishing him actually accomplishes something. But if he just isn't going to understand anyway, then there's no real point other than upholding some grand abstracted idea of 'Justice' or personal vengeance.

Why? Why do people cling to these ideas of objective morality? It's all just a construct. There's just no need to have stringent un-bendable codes. Each situation is different, the more adaptable the system the better off it is. Now I don't know if you have this in Australia, but in America we have a thing called 'jury nullification'. This happens when the entire jury finds the law to be lacking in the particular situation, they vote the defendant innocent, even though he or she is guilty under the law. To clarify, this isn't a term that just describes what sometimes happens in spite of the law, IT IS PART OF THE LAW. The law is bendable because it does not arise out of some sort of eternal metaphysical code of right and wrong, but out of the needs of society.

But you don't seem to understand that I'm making a more general point. In this situation, the mother did cheat, and the kid may very well know what he did was wrong, in which case he should have been punished because it means that he won't do it next time. But that being said, I feel more sympathy for the kid because of his situation. Really the mother is the one who is really morally culpable, and she's the one who will know better for next time.

One final thing. People with disabilities should get special treatment. The special treatment should just be proportional to the disability. You wouldn't say a paraplegic is a bad person for not pulling someone out of a burning car would you? They can't. A person with Tourette's should be excused for shouting obscenities. Etc. Etc. If the autistic person doesn't understand what they're doing, they should be excused as well. Notice I am saying "doesn't understand what they're doing" which is different from simply being ignorant of the law.

First and foremost how is MS supposed to keep track of millions of people with all their disabilities? Or let everyone else know that we are supposed to treat them proportionally because of it? Would it be better if on his gamertag "excuse my achievements being out of order because I have autism." This is of course after we all are subjected to a battery of psychological exams before we are allowed to sign up to Live in the first place. Since you can't have people claiming they have a disability to get this special treatment in the first place. Or maybe MS could add a new type of gamer. Right now there is stuff like underground and family and such. Why not make a new server and call it something like Special? Then we can keep them away from the "normal" players and they can do whatever they want. Lets just take away one of the last places where people with mental disabilities are treated equally and fairly. Where they aren't subjected to being put in the special class and being told how different they are. I mean that is the only fair way to make sure they are protected from the "normals". And the "normals" are protected from them. Afterall that is why we have Special Olympics and Special classes. They can't keep up with the "normals" and the "normals" shouldn't have to slow down for them. So lets just keep them seperated all together.

I don't know about you but to me that sounds quite offensive. And by far worse than having you achievements taken away and getting smacked with a label of exactly what you are. A cheater regardless if you know better or not.

I'm sorry that facts offend you. They have the special Olympics because paraplegics in wheelchairs can't keep up with world-class sprinters. Life isn't fair, some people are better at some things than others. You don't need to build in a special system for autistic people, the company can basically do whatever it wants, if some mother complains that her child was unaware of what he was doing (imagine a scenario in which the mother didn't know, and the kid doesn't understand what cheating is), then they could give them special treatment. If the child is affected that much by it, the mother can send in letters to the company with proof, (i.e. a letter from her child's psychologist that says he's incapable of understanding what cheating is). I guess you also think that blind people shouldn't be allowed to bring their seeing eye dogs into restaurants that generally ban animals. That's a special case right? They should be treated as equals and be allowed to stumble around and spill hot coffee on themselves right? Do we really need to feed ourselves this lie that everyone is equal in spite of the facts?

You have misunderstood. You obviously missed the line "Lets just take away one of the last places where people with mental disabilities are treated equally and fairly. Or maybe I didn't make it clear. Do you think they want to be treated differently? Do you think the, to use your example, parpalegic who can't pull the person out of the car is happy about that fact? That people will ruffle his hair and say it's ok Jimmy we understand you couldn't help because you are special. Do you not think that they would love to be treated like everyone else inspite of their disability if it were physically possible? So there is one place they can and you want to take that away from them? Why because it hurts their feelings? Or because they aren't given an advantage? But instead put on a level playing field where they are just as capable to compete with anyone else disabled or not.

No. I think you're the one who misunderstands. I never said anything about people being forced into different gamerzones or anything like that. My one example is a person who is incapable of understanding what cheating is, what are the chances that person is going to have complex attitudes about fairness or equality? You're confusing fairness with blind adherence to codes without taking the situation at hand into account. This would be a person who just plays a game, and then has their achievements taken away and doesn't understand why. This is perhaps not the kid in the article, but there are people like that out there. Plus, I was only advocating that people with disabilities be given positive benefits. In fact, I think it is unfair that we should disregard extenuating circumstances. If your point is that it is unfair that there are disabled people then you need to take that up with god or mother nature. Society doesn't decide whether they are equal in their abilities, there is just a fact of the matter.

Your solution seems to be that we don't have a special Olympics at all, because we don't want people with disabilities to think that they're different. They might not like being different, but they are. If Jimmy the paraplegic is upset because people don't expect him to perform physical feats he is incapable of, then he's really upset about his condition, not about people. If you take that same person and then accuse him of being a coward for not helping, the FIRST thing he is going to do is point out that he was incapable of helping. If you think we should pit people in wheelchairs against world class sprinters, I can tell you right now that it isn't going to help their self esteem in the slightest when they get lapped.

I don't think the answer is to delude them about their lives, I think it is to try to accommodate them so that their lives are as fulfilling as possible. A person in a wheelchair needs to recognize and come to terms with his or her condition, and society needs to do its part to make sure that their disadvantages are compensated for. I don't know where you got the idea that I was suggesting that autistic people be given their own gamerzones or leagues in videogames. The reason why videogames are one of the last bastions for the disabled to be treated equally is BECAUSE THEY ARE EQUAL WHEN IT COMES TO VIDEOGAMES. Aside from people who have a disability that affects their motor function, most people can play videogames. No one needs help unless they actually need or want help. No one forces people to use wheelchairs, they could crawl if they really wanted to. It's just that no one in their right mind wants to. There's no reason to compensate for most people in videogames because they don't need compensation. Even the example I am talking about isn't at all a reference to the autistic child's ability to play, just their ability to understand what cheating is. It's a point about cheating and punishment, not about who should be allowed to play videogames. One could argue that it is unfair to other people because when they are put into that position, they will be punished, but this is clearly mistaken because the scenario wouldn't be the same unless they also had the same extenuating mental condition.

I was talking about one extreme and abstract case where the agent can't be held fully responsible for his or her actions. I didn't even say that he should be able to keep the achievements he or she cheated for, I just think that the situation would require a more nuanced reaction because of the special circumstances. I made no such claims that autistic people should have their own league. That's all you bro. Have you ever heard of a straw-man fallacy?

First if they are playing the games and getting the rewards there isn't a problem. Second read my post again. but this time really read it. Try and see if you can find the tone. I suggested the "special" not because it is a good idea because it isn't. But because that is the only way it would work to keep things fair for everybody. Oh right I forgot you are against people being treated fairly. Which leads us down a very slippery slope.

You must be daft. I know that you don't like treating people as special, and I made arguments in response to that. I also made arguments about what 'fairness' is and why your definition thereof is deficient. In fact I made arguments that the only way to treat people fairly is to take their circumstances into account. You're really just begging the question. Be careful, the last two sentences could be taken as implying that I am a German nationalist circa 1940, which as we all know is the sure sign of defeat in internet debates.

Really? Do I now? Or maybe I know a few disabled people who in spite of their disabilities would love nothing more than to be treated like everybody else. People who take the shittiest jobs (like dishwashing) for a few hours a week just so they can feel like they are "normal". Maybe what I have been saying all along is wouldn't it be nice if they didn't need special treatment. Perfect world sure. But to give them extra special treatment like you suggest is wrong. Seeing eye dog = neccesity. Special Olympics = great self esteem booster (among other things). Telling them it is ok to cheat = counterproductiveness.

What part of my argument do you not get? I'm not saying that you should tell anyone it is okay to cheat. I'm saying there's no point in punishing someone who doesn't understand what cheating is, because they wouldn't understand why they are being punished. If your friends know what cheating is, then they should be held accountable. Some people don't though, (the ones with really severe mental illness), and it doesn't make any sense to punish them for something when they just don't know any better. You have to restrict their actions, sure, but they aren't going to learn anything from being punished.

If other autistic people who have it better off find this offensive, maybe they should really just be thankful that they don't have it that bad. The people I'm talking about aren't going to have their self esteem affected because they just don't know what's going on. The kid in the article probably isn't one of these people though, so he should be punished. I hope that makes things clear, but just to reiterate, I'm not telling anyone that it is okay to cheat. The people who shouldn't be punished wouldn't even understand me if I did tell them it was okay.

I guess the part where the punishment is meant to teach them something. We have laws and rules with punishment not to teach someone something but to deter them from said actions. And to protect the law abiding citizens. Give them a sense of security. Saying that because for whatever reason those rules don't apply does neither. Even pleading insanity doesn't mean they get to walk scott free. They just end up in a different type of prison.

What did you think I meant by 'teach them something?', give them a nice lecture and let them take notes? I meant that a person who doesn't have any understanding of the situation ISN'T GOING TO BE DETERRED BY THE PUNISHMENT BECAUSE THEY WON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND THAT THEY ARE BEING PUNISHED (this is in caps because it is the important part). No, we don't punish some lunatic who goes off shooting people because he thinks they are the demons in his head, we HELP HIM. We don't send him to prison, we send him to a MENTAL CARE FACILITY, which is most decidedly not a prison because it also helps people who are there voluntarily. When (or if) that person becomes sane again, they will probably feel instant remorse at their actions. There is a huge difference between punishing someone and restraining them for their own good and the good of others. The severely autistic person in question should definitely be restrained, but there's no point in punishing them because they don't know what they did and they wouldn't be deterred from doing it again, you'd really just be causing them suffering for no apparent reason except to abide by some abstract (and rather deviant) idea of what fairness is.

And how would you restrain them? Take them off XBL completely? Make a special server just for him and people like him? Or maybe take away his achievement points and put a label like cheater on his gamertag so everytime he logs on he is reminded what he did was wrong? This of course is with a letter explaining what actions are wrong. Maybe MS could make it his motto for him. Or do you expect MS to send someone to his house to personally monitor his actions and guide him?

Personally I'd assume that his guardian is basically in charge of his care, because a person who is that disabled would be incapable of taking care of themselves. Thus the very simple solution would be to first remove the achievements he actually cheated for and then warn his guardian that if he cheats again they will be forced to remove his gamer-score because it isn't fair to the rest of the community. Then it's on the head of the guardian, if that person can't control him then there will be negative repercussions, even though the person doesn't know what they're doing. Notice in this scenario the actual agent isn't aware of the situation so a secondary agent is the one who assumes responsibility. While it isn't really fair to punish a person who doesn't know what they're doing, it also isn't fair to others that he be allowed to cheat. Of course this is assuming some sort of utilitarianism. A deontologist might punish people no matter what. Of course the deontologist also would refuse to lie to the gestapo in order to save Anne Frank because lying is never permitted.

 

[squid5580]

Snip snip-

Check the law: ignorance of it is no excuse for breaking it. Assuming the kid didn't know what he was doing was wrong (which, as I should point out, has nothing to do with the fact the kid is austistic; any young kid probably wouldn't know what cheating is...), the mature thing to do would've been to say "Well I didn't know that was cheating but I do for next time".

Now assuming the kid was incapable of understanding what he did was cheating, it would be up to the mother to make that call for him. The article quite clearly stated the mother warned her kid against what he was doing, so your argument really holds no water.

Don't get me wrong, there are some rules I don't agree with. For example, I believe it is disgusting down here in Australia gays are not allowed to get married. However, I fully believe that breaking the law is grounds for just punishment for doing so.

I'm so tired of people like you trying to put people with disabilities on some kind of pedastal. I've seen plenty of cases where people, without any form of disability, have done something with their Xbox they weren't aware was considered cheating. Why should this austistic kid get his points back over those other people?

You cannot have one set of rules for one person, and another set of rules for everyone else. As I've said before, the fact this kid was autistic has less than nothing to do with this case; any young kid probably wouldn't understand what this kid did would be considered as cheating. It would be up to the mother to prevent her kid from doing it, and if the mother also didn't know then that sucks for the kid, but by no means does that mean he should get his points back.

*sigh* If a mentally retarded person does something wrong, I expect them to get some form of punishment. If a normal person does something wrong, I expect them to get some form of punishment. Obviously, there would be differing circumstances in some cases (what pleading insanity is for, afterall). However, no one should be allowed to do something wrong and get off scott free.

But hey, it's good to see the mother's desperate attempt for sympathy has worked on you. Any young kid would probably look at this and say "Well I don't understand what I did was cheating", but just because the kid is austistic you feel he should be given a free ride.

Hell take it even further, you punish a little kid for anything and chances are they're going to have no idea what they did was wrong (until you punish them for it enough times, they get the picture).

My entire point was about agency. Ignorance of the law, and the incapability to understand the law are two different things. Do we punish a train for crashing and killing people? No, because it's a frigging train. If the autistic kid is capable of understanding the situation and just hasn't learned to, then yes, punishing him actually accomplishes something. But if he just isn't going to understand anyway, then there's no real point other than upholding some grand abstracted idea of 'Justice' or personal vengeance.

Why? Why do people cling to these ideas of objective morality? It's all just a construct. There's just no need to have stringent un-bendable codes. Each situation is different, the more adaptable the system the better off it is. Now I don't know if you have this in Australia, but in America we have a thing called 'jury nullification'. This happens when the entire jury finds the law to be lacking in the particular situation, they vote the defendant innocent, even though he or she is guilty under the law. To clarify, this isn't a term that just describes what sometimes happens in spite of the law, IT IS PART OF THE LAW. The law is bendable because it does not arise out of some sort of eternal metaphysical code of right and wrong, but out of the needs of society.

But you don't seem to understand that I'm making a more general point. In this situation, the mother did cheat, and the kid may very well know what he did was wrong, in which case he should have been punished because it means that he won't do it next time. But that being said, I feel more sympathy for the kid because of his situation. Really the mother is the one who is really morally culpable, and she's the one who will know better for next time.

One final thing. People with disabilities should get special treatment. The special treatment should just be proportional to the disability. You wouldn't say a paraplegic is a bad person for not pulling someone out of a burning car would you? They can't. A person with Tourette's should be excused for shouting obscenities. Etc. Etc. If the autistic person doesn't understand what they're doing, they should be excused as well. Notice I am saying "doesn't understand what they're doing" which is different from simply being ignorant of the law.

First and foremost how is MS supposed to keep track of millions of people with all their disabilities? Or let everyone else know that we are supposed to treat them proportionally because of it? Would it be better if on his gamertag "excuse my achievements being out of order because I have autism." This is of course after we all are subjected to a battery of psychological exams before we are allowed to sign up to Live in the first place. Since you can't have people claiming they have a disability to get this special treatment in the first place. Or maybe MS could add a new type of gamer. Right now there is stuff like underground and family and such. Why not make a new server and call it something like Special? Then we can keep them away from the "normal" players and they can do whatever they want. Lets just take away one of the last places where people with mental disabilities are treated equally and fairly. Where they aren't subjected to being put in the special class and being told how different they are. I mean that is the only fair way to make sure they are protected from the "normals". And the "normals" are protected from them. Afterall that is why we have Special Olympics and Special classes. They can't keep up with the "normals" and the "normals" shouldn't have to slow down for them. So lets just keep them seperated all together.

I don't know about you but to me that sounds quite offensive. And by far worse than having you achievements taken away and getting smacked with a label of exactly what you are. A cheater regardless if you know better or not.

I'm sorry that facts offend you. They have the special Olympics because paraplegics in wheelchairs can't keep up with world-class sprinters. Life isn't fair, some people are better at some things than others. You don't need to build in a special system for autistic people, the company can basically do whatever it wants, if some mother complains that her child was unaware of what he was doing (imagine a scenario in which the mother didn't know, and the kid doesn't understand what cheating is), then they could give them special treatment. If the child is affected that much by it, the mother can send in letters to the company with proof, (i.e. a letter from her child's psychologist that says he's incapable of understanding what cheating is). I guess you also think that blind people shouldn't be allowed to bring their seeing eye dogs into restaurants that generally ban animals. That's a special case right? They should be treated as equals and be allowed to stumble around and spill hot coffee on themselves right? Do we really need to feed ourselves this lie that everyone is equal in spite of the facts?

You have misunderstood. You obviously missed the line "Lets just take away one of the last places where people with mental disabilities are treated equally and fairly. Or maybe I didn't make it clear. Do you think they want to be treated differently? Do you think the, to use your example, parpalegic who can't pull the person out of the car is happy about that fact? That people will ruffle his hair and say it's ok Jimmy we understand you couldn't help because you are special. Do you not think that they would love to be treated like everyone else inspite of their disability if it were physically possible? So there is one place they can and you want to take that away from them? Why because it hurts their feelings? Or because they aren't given an advantage? But instead put on a level playing field where they are just as capable to compete with anyone else disabled or not.

No. I think you're the one who misunderstands. I never said anything about people being forced into different gamerzones or anything like that. My one example is a person who is incapable of understanding what cheating is, what are the chances that person is going to have complex attitudes about fairness or equality? You're confusing fairness with blind adherence to codes without taking the situation at hand into account. This would be a person who just plays a game, and then has their achievements taken away and doesn't understand why. This is perhaps not the kid in the article, but there are people like that out there. Plus, I was only advocating that people with disabilities be given positive benefits. In fact, I think it is unfair that we should disregard extenuating circumstances. If your point is that it is unfair that there are disabled people then you need to take that up with god or mother nature. Society doesn't decide whether they are equal in their abilities, there is just a fact of the matter.

Your solution seems to be that we don't have a special Olympics at all, because we don't want people with disabilities to think that they're different. They might not like being different, but they are. If Jimmy the paraplegic is upset because people don't expect him to perform physical feats he is incapable of, then he's really upset about his condition, not about people. If you take that same person and then accuse him of being a coward for not helping, the FIRST thing he is going to do is point out that he was incapable of helping. If you think we should pit people in wheelchairs against world class sprinters, I can tell you right now that it isn't going to help their self esteem in the slightest when they get lapped.

I don't think the answer is to delude them about their lives, I think it is to try to accommodate them so that their lives are as fulfilling as possible. A person in a wheelchair needs to recognize and come to terms with his or her condition, and society needs to do its part to make sure that their disadvantages are compensated for. I don't know where you got the idea that I was suggesting that autistic people be given their own gamerzones or leagues in videogames. The reason why videogames are one of the last bastions for the disabled to be treated equally is BECAUSE THEY ARE EQUAL WHEN IT COMES TO VIDEOGAMES. Aside from people who have a disability that affects their motor function, most people can play videogames. No one needs help unless they actually need or want help. No one forces people to use wheelchairs, they could crawl if they really wanted to. It's just that no one in their right mind wants to. There's no reason to compensate for most people in videogames because they don't need compensation. Even the example I am talking about isn't at all a reference to the autistic child's ability to play, just their ability to understand what cheating is. It's a point about cheating and punishment, not about who should be allowed to play videogames. One could argue that it is unfair to other people because when they are put into that position, they will be punished, but this is clearly mistaken because the scenario wouldn't be the same unless they also had the same extenuating mental condition.

I was talking about one extreme and abstract case where the agent can't be held fully responsible for his or her actions. I didn't even say that he should be able to keep the achievements he or she cheated for, I just think that the situation would require a more nuanced reaction because of the special circumstances. I made no such claims that autistic people should have their own league. That's all you bro. Have you ever heard of a straw-man fallacy?

First if they are playing the games and getting the rewards there isn't a problem. Second read my post again. but this time really read it. Try and see if you can find the tone. I suggested the "special" not because it is a good idea because it isn't. But because that is the only way it would work to keep things fair for everybody. Oh right I forgot you are against people being treated fairly. Which leads us down a very slippery slope.

You must be daft. I know that you don't like treating people as special, and I made arguments in response to that. I also made arguments about what 'fairness' is and why your definition thereof is deficient. In fact I made arguments that the only way to treat people fairly is to take their circumstances into account. You're really just begging the question. Be careful, the last two sentences could be taken as implying that I am a German nationalist circa 1940, which as we all know is the sure sign of defeat in internet debates.

Really? Do I now? Or maybe I know a few disabled people who in spite of their disabilities would love nothing more than to be treated like everybody else. People who take the shittiest jobs (like dishwashing) for a few hours a week just so they can feel like they are "normal". Maybe what I have been saying all along is wouldn't it be nice if they didn't need special treatment. Perfect world sure. But to give them extra special treatment like you suggest is wrong. Seeing eye dog = neccesity. Special Olympics = great self esteem booster (among other things). Telling them it is ok to cheat = counterproductiveness.

What part of my argument do you not get? I'm not saying that you should tell anyone it is okay to cheat. I'm saying there's no point in punishing someone who doesn't understand what cheating is, because they wouldn't understand why they are being punished. If your friends know what cheating is, then they should be held accountable. Some people don't though, (the ones with really severe mental illness), and it doesn't make any sense to punish them for something when they just don't know any better. You have to restrict their actions, sure, but they aren't going to learn anything from being punished.

If other autistic people who have it better off find this offensive, maybe they should really just be thankful that they don't have it that bad. The people I'm talking about aren't going to have their self esteem affected because they just don't know what's going on. The kid in the article probably isn't one of these people though, so he should be punished. I hope that makes things clear, but just to reiterate, I'm not telling anyone that it is okay to cheat. The people who shouldn't be punished wouldn't even understand me if I did tell them it was okay.

I guess the part where the punishment is meant to teach them something. We have laws and rules with punishment not to teach someone something but to deter them from said actions. And to protect the law abiding citizens. Give them a sense of security. Saying that because for whatever reason those rules don't apply does neither. Even pleading insanity doesn't mean they get to walk scott free. They just end up in a different type of prison.

What did you think I meant by 'teach them something?', give them a nice lecture and let them take notes? I meant that a person who doesn't have any understanding of the situation ISN'T GOING TO BE DETERRED BY THE PUNISHMENT BECAUSE THEY WON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND THAT THEY ARE BEING PUNISHED (this is in caps because it is the important part). No, we don't punish some lunatic who goes off shooting people because he thinks they are the demons in his head, we HELP HIM. We don't send him to prison, we send him to a MENTAL CARE FACILITY, which is most decidedly not a prison because it also helps people who are there voluntarily. When (or if) that person becomes sane again, they will probably feel instant remorse at their actions. There is a huge difference between punishing someone and restraining them for their own good and the good of others. The severely autistic person in question should definitely be restrained, but there's no point in punishing them because they don't know what they did and they wouldn't be deterred from doing it again, you'd really just be causing them suffering for no apparent reason except to abide by some abstract (and rather deviant) idea of what fairness is.

And how would you restrain them? Take them off XBL completely? Make a special server just for him and people like him? Or maybe take away his achievement points and put a label like cheater on his gamertag so everytime he logs on he is reminded what he did was wrong? This of course is with a letter explaining what actions are wrong. Maybe MS could make it his motto for him. Or do you expect MS to send someone to his house to personally monitor his actions and guide him?

Personally I'd assume that his guardian is basically in charge of his care, because a person who is that disabled would be incapable of taking care of themselves. Thus the very simple solution would be to first remove the achievements he actually cheated for and then warn his guardian that if he cheats again they will be forced to remove his gamer-score because it isn't fair to the rest of the community. Then it's on the head of the guardian, if that person can't control him then there will be negative repercussions, even though the person doesn't know what they're doing. Notice in this scenario the actual agent isn't aware of the situation so a secondary agent is the one who assumes responsibility. While it isn't really fair to punish a person who doesn't know what they're doing, it also isn't fair to others that he be allowed to cheat. Of course this is assuming some sort of utilitarianism. A deontologist might punish people no matter what. Of course the deontologist also would refuse to lie to the gestapo in order to save Anne Frank because lying is never permitted.

So we are back to the ignorance card again? Because the guardian didn't know better it is ok? Or because the guardian wasn't monitoring him (aka doing what they were supposed to be doing) it should be ok? I mean sure it isn't exactly fair that he had to be reset because of it (since it is his mother who should have suffered) but life isn't fair, get a helmet. A 0 tolerance policy means exactly that 0 tolerance. You open up a huge can of worms otherwise. He did it because he didn't know better. The next guy did it because he didn't have the required skills to get 3 kills with 1 grenade. Is guy #2 any more wrong? He obviously has a grenade throwing disability. Shouldn't he get special treatment as well?

 

[Sparcrypt]

Yep, pretty much exactly what I gleamed from the original story. Everything achievements related is easily tracked, why people think they can get away with faking it is beyond me.

Actually it's pretty easy to do so.

I personally haven't done it as I firmly believe that cheating for such things just takes away the fun of the games so I don't see the point - and people who cheat against other players are the scum of the earth IMO.

However I have seen how it is done and I do have a technical background so I'm reasonably qualified to say you can get away with it as long as you are careful and not greedy - for instance, don't unlock 1000/1000 points for 7 online games in 2 days.

But, if you were to say, play lots of Halo 3 legitimately, then unlock an online achievement every week or two (in the right order) via suspect means, your odds of being caught are very low.

That said, I could still be wrong as I don't know how the MS backend works and like I said, I haven't personally done it. But as the key tipoffs here were the transfer to another city and the unlocking of the achievements out of order.. well thats a nice big red flag.

The 'they got unlocked offline' bit not so much really. I was at a mates place once playing Forza 2 offline (not hooked up at all to the net). We finished a race and it unlocked 2 online achievements while offline... a bug clearly, however he was never banned for it. I've seem similar things happen over the years, I even saw an achievement for a game we weren't playing unlock early in the days of the 360, that was pretty funny.

And of course if you do cheat and you get caught? Well that's the price you pay guys. Oh and to be clear as I said above, I'm very anti-cheating, I just don't like blanket statements of 'you can't do it without getting caught, it's impossible!'. So yeah, just sayin .

On the note of the actual story, it looks like the kid might not have known the guy was going to cheat to get them. But that is the risk you run and the mother did warn him, so no sympathy here. And less then zero for the attention seeking 'give my child special treatment' mother.

Kudos to MS for sticking to their guns.

 

[Sparcrypt]

What part of my argument do you not get? I'm not saying that you should tell anyone it is okay to cheat. I'm saying there's no point in punishing someone who doesn't understand what cheating is, because they wouldn't understand why they are being punished.

Or we can treat everyone equally?

This was not 'punishment' - it was the breaking of an agreement between the provider of the service and the customer. The outcome was what was specified would happen in the event of a certain breach of that agreement. MS would have had absolutely no idea the kid was disabled when they acted, nor would they need that information as it's not relevent.

They didn't even ban him anyway. They removed his ill-gotten gains and marked him as a cheater. Due to the complaining from the mother they have offered him free gametime and a new gamertag to start fresh - more then anyone else would be given.