Autistic Xbox Player's Mother Admits He Cheated

[jackpipsam]

"not something big"

idk maybe YOUR CREDIT-CARD?

 

[GavmatexD]

omg why did she actully not just admit it in the first place , shes just humilated herself in front of the media and worst of all her own son ¬_¬

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

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.

You missed most of the argument. That's all a separate issue from what I was talking about. If it's not punishment, then fine. But labeling someone a cheater kinda seems like a punishment to me. I also wasn't saying that microsoft's actions were wrong, from their perspective they were doing everything by the book.

On a separate note, I think they removed ALL of his achievements whereas he only got one or two through cheating, which really seems bogus to me, regardless of the kid's circumstances. I think removing someone's bogus achievements and calling them a cheater is enough. Unless they've modded their Xbox, in which case they're not just cheaters, but have broken all sorts of other rules. Then they should probably be taken off Xbox live completely. Come to think of it, the person who gave the kid the achievements did that, so he should definitely be hunted down and have his xbox destroyed. The drug dealers are a lot worse than the drug users if you understand my analogy.

 

[squid5580]

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.

Sorry but you are mistaken in your last sentence. That is exactly what MS gives everyone. If you sign up for XBL through your console you are given a new gamertag and 1 month free gold. All you need is a new email address. And with that comes consequences. If you have any gold time left on you old account well kiss it goodbye. You won't be able to use your saves. And any avatar gear is gone.

Jesus why haven't they edited that little tidbit of information in their yet. You are only the millionth person who misunderstood that.

 

[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.

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?

No, I think it's pretty obvious that the theoretical autistic person is a special case because they aren't a full agent, and that it's not a slippery slope at all. Think about it legally, in order to be bound by an agreement, you have to sign the user license right? But you also have to be of sound mind in order to be legally held to any agreement. So the autistic person CAN'T be legally responsible. If their legal guardian signed the thing in the first place, then actually, you're right, they shouldn't even be given a second chance because that person should have been in control. But if the autistic person just pressed it without knowing what they were doing, then it really isn't binding. Come to think of it, it actually might be the case that there's no way in which the autistic person shouldn't have their Xbox taken away, because the legal guardian might just be responsible for all of their actions. So I'll concede the point insofar as pragmatically there just might be no way in which you couldn't take away the person's Xbox, even though it isn't fair to them. But really that's just a restatement of the 'life isn't fair' principle.

But if your point is that there should be blind adherence to a zero tolerance policy without taking particular circumstances into account, then sure. You should just realize that you've basically admitted that you WILL be doing the wrong thing in a lot of cases; it's just better overall if a few people get unfairly punished. You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs right?

 

[squid5580]

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.

You missed most of the argument. That's all a separate issue from what I was talking about. If it's not punishment, then fine. But labeling someone a cheater kinda seems like a punishment to me. I also wasn't saying that microsoft's actions were wrong, from their perspective they were doing everything by the book.

On a separate note, I think they removed ALL of his achievements whereas he only got one or two through cheating, which really seems bogus to me, regardless of the kid's circumstances. I think removing someone's bogus achievements and calling them a cheater is enough. Unless they've modded their Xbox, in which case they're not just cheaters, but have broken all sorts of other rules. Then they should probably be taken off Xbox live completely. Come to think of it, the person who gave the kid the achievements did that, so he should definitely be hunted down and have his xbox destroyed. The drug dealers are a lot worse than the drug users if you understand my analogy.

Oh sure you are right that the guy who did it should pay as well.

I gotta ask you something. If it was just some random non disabled person who had their score reset to 0 would you feel that that person should only have the achievements they can prove he cheated for removed? Since well just because they can prove he cheated for a few doesn't mean he didn't cheat for them all.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

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.

You missed most of the argument. That's all a separate issue from what I was talking about. If it's not punishment, then fine. But labeling someone a cheater kinda seems like a punishment to me. I also wasn't saying that microsoft's actions were wrong, from their perspective they were doing everything by the book.

On a separate note, I think they removed ALL of his achievements whereas he only got one or two through cheating, which really seems bogus to me, regardless of the kid's circumstances. I think removing someone's bogus achievements and calling them a cheater is enough. Unless they've modded their Xbox, in which case they're not just cheaters, but have broken all sorts of other rules. Then they should probably be taken off Xbox live completely. Come to think of it, the person who gave the kid the achievements did that, so he should definitely be hunted down and have his xbox destroyed. The drug dealers are a lot worse than the drug users if you understand my analogy.

Oh sure you are right that the guy who did it should pay as well.

I gotta ask you something. If it was just some random non disabled person who had their score reset to 0 would you feel that that person should only have the achievements they can prove he cheated for removed? Since well just because they can prove he cheated for a few doesn't mean he didn't cheat for them all.

Definitely. It's about what you can prove. You can't convict someone of something unless you can prove it. I think the fact that they are labeled cheater is enough to imply to anyone that their other achievements are questionable. Like I said, this is divorced from any special circumstances or disabilities. To have cheated for just one achievement and then have all of your well earned achievements scratched is pretty messed up. I think having the label cheater is enough of a disincentive, it kind of makes your gamerscore meaningless as a bragging right. But like I said, if a person actually physically modifies their xbox then put the hammer to them.

 

[SweetLiquidSnake]

I probably made this comment like 6 pages ago but why the hell are people still talking about this? its a useless, trivial incident, and its cuz some handicapped kid lost some achievements. I find this to be the equivalent of Steve Jobs randomly calling an iPhone and calling the owner a douchebag, thats not news its just dumb.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

Wait a second, lemme see if I got this straight.

1. Autistic kid can't be bothered to get all the achievements himself, so he gets someone to hack the achievements for him.
2. Kid gets his gamerscore reset and then butthurts to his soccer mom, who then plays the "my child is disabled gimme compensation plox" card.
3. Soccer mom later admits the kid cheated anyway.

Why has irresponsibility infested mankind so much?

 

[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?

No, I think it's pretty obvious that the theoretical autistic person is a special case because they aren't a full agent, and that it's not a slippery slope at all. Think about it legally, in order to be bound by an agreement, you have to sign the user license right? But you also have to be of sound mind in order to be legally held to any agreement. So the autistic person CAN'T be legally responsible. If their legal guardian signed the thing in the first place, then actually, you're right, they shouldn't even be given a second chance because that person should have been in control. But if the autistic person just pressed it without knowing what they were doing, then it really isn't binding. Come to think of it, it actually might be the case that there's no way in which the autistic person shouldn't have their Xbox taken away, because the legal guardian might just be responsible for all of their actions. So I'll concede the point insofar as pragmatically there just might be no way in which you couldn't take away the person's Xbox, even though it isn't fair to them. But really that's just a restatement of the 'life isn't fair' principle.

But if your point is that there should be blind adherence to a zero tolerance policy without taking particular circumstances into account, then sure. You should just realize that you've basically admitted that you WILL be doing the wrong thing in a lot of cases; it's just better overall if a few people get unfairly punished. You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs right?

Well first off I am not exactly sure where achievements would fit in the user agreement. I mean it isn't like they took him offline, denied him access to any of their services of which he paid or anything like that. They simply saw he was competing unfairly in an online arena and dealt with it. Just like a player losing his medal because he used roids. It could be said well he is addicted that isn't fair. But it doesn't change the fact he used an outside force to gain an unfair advantage. So how is that fair to the legit players if he is allowed to keep it regardless of the individual circumstances? Sure if you want to use the omellete analogy I guess it fits. I am more under the "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" mentality myself.

 

[squid5580]

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.

You missed most of the argument. That's all a separate issue from what I was talking about. If it's not punishment, then fine. But labeling someone a cheater kinda seems like a punishment to me. I also wasn't saying that microsoft's actions were wrong, from their perspective they were doing everything by the book.

On a separate note, I think they removed ALL of his achievements whereas he only got one or two through cheating, which really seems bogus to me, regardless of the kid's circumstances. I think removing someone's bogus achievements and calling them a cheater is enough. Unless they've modded their Xbox, in which case they're not just cheaters, but have broken all sorts of other rules. Then they should probably be taken off Xbox live completely. Come to think of it, the person who gave the kid the achievements did that, so he should definitely be hunted down and have his xbox destroyed. The drug dealers are a lot worse than the drug users if you understand my analogy.

Oh sure you are right that the guy who did it should pay as well.

I gotta ask you something. If it was just some random non disabled person who had their score reset to 0 would you feel that that person should only have the achievements they can prove he cheated for removed? Since well just because they can prove he cheated for a few doesn't mean he didn't cheat for them all.

Definitely. It's about what you can prove. You can't convict someone of something unless you can prove it. I think the fact that they are labeled cheater is enough to imply to anyone that their other achievements are questionable. Like I said, this is divorced from any special circumstances or disabilities. To have cheated for just one achievement and then have all of your well earned achievements scratched is pretty messed up. I think having the label cheater is enough of a disincentive, it kind of makes your gamerscore meaningless as a bragging right. But like I said, if a person actually physically modifies their xbox then put the hammer to them.

Oh they catch you doing that it is the banhammer. They brick your console if they catch you doing that.

 

[squid5580]

I probably made this comment like 6 pages ago but why the hell are people still talking about this? its a useless, trivial incident, and its cuz some handicapped kid lost some achievements. I find this to be the equivalent of Steve Jobs randomly calling an iPhone and calling the owner a douchebag, thats not news its just dumb.

Then maybe you should read past page 6 since the discussion has evolved to the morality of it. Not whether or not this is newsworthy which BTW was said on page 1.

 

[Eggsnham]

Well, I have clinical depression and ADD, I want my diplomatic immunity, damnit!

 

[SweetLiquidSnake]

I probably made this comment like 6 pages ago but why the hell are people still talking about this? its a useless, trivial incident, and its cuz some handicapped kid lost some achievements. I find this to be the equivalent of Steve Jobs randomly calling an iPhone and calling the owner a douchebag, thats not news its just dumb.

Then maybe you should read past page 6 since the discussion has evolved to the morality of it. Not whether or not this is newsworthy which BTW was said on page 1.

Nah I dont care about morality of it, its just a big waste of time. Just a bunch people beating a dead issue, but I know there are some hardcore nerds on this site that take this stuff too seriously, so whatever I'm done with it

 

[TAGM]

Oh please everyone that is on there high freaking horse . Oh he shouldn't have cheated hes a bad boy. How many of your achievements have you gotten 100% on your own with no help from any one else . Youtube/friend/faqs everyone does so grow up quit hammering the kid. As for his disability until you know the full extent don't assume you know what the kid can and can't do. Autism can be a real *****. The mother over reacted to lash out at Xbox facts are fact kid got caught.

I think you have yet to realise there's a difference between sharing statergies and tips and hacking the game. And also, you seem to think that Autistics have no knowlage of rules, even when said rules are explicitly stated, Which can't really be pinned on autism. In fact, about the only "fact" you seem to have gotten close to right is the fact that the mother overreacted - which actually harms your point. Well done.

 

[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.

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?

No, I think it's pretty obvious that the theoretical autistic person is a special case because they aren't a full agent, and that it's not a slippery slope at all. Think about it legally, in order to be bound by an agreement, you have to sign the user license right? But you also have to be of sound mind in order to be legally held to any agreement. So the autistic person CAN'T be legally responsible. If their legal guardian signed the thing in the first place, then actually, you're right, they shouldn't even be given a second chance because that person should have been in control. But if the autistic person just pressed it without knowing what they were doing, then it really isn't binding. Come to think of it, it actually might be the case that there's no way in which the autistic person shouldn't have their Xbox taken away, because the legal guardian might just be responsible for all of their actions. So I'll concede the point insofar as pragmatically there just might be no way in which you couldn't take away the person's Xbox, even though it isn't fair to them. But really that's just a restatement of the 'life isn't fair' principle.

But if your point is that there should be blind adherence to a zero tolerance policy without taking particular circumstances into account, then sure. You should just realize that you've basically admitted that you WILL be doing the wrong thing in a lot of cases; it's just better overall if a few people get unfairly punished. You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs right?

Well first off I am not exactly sure where achievements would fit in the user agreement. I mean it isn't like they took him offline, denied him access to any of their services of which he paid or anything like that. They simply saw he was competing unfairly in an online arena and dealt with it. Just like a player losing his medal because he used roids. It could be said well he is addicted that isn't fair. But it doesn't change the fact he used an outside force to gain an unfair advantage. So how is that fair to the legit players if he is allowed to keep it regardless of the individual circumstances? Sure if you want to use the omellete analogy I guess it fits. I am more under the "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" mentality myself.

I'm sure there's something in the user agreement about cheating, otherwise anyone could complain that they have no right to enforce anything. If the user agreement just says that MS has the right to do whatever they want to people's gamerscore, then they can do whatever they want. If Bill Gates is playing and someone pisses him off, he could have it so that player never plays again just because he has the power. That doesn't make it right though. If the user agreement says that they only have the power to alter a person's gamerscore if they are caught cheating then the user agreement becomes important.

Also the steroid analogy doesn't fit because the steroid user initially chose to take steroids, even if he or she became addicted to them. Also I've never said that it was fair to other gamers, in fact, I've always admitted that it isn't. I've been arguing about whether it's fair to the person with the condition. To have a theory of fairness where only the overall fairness is taken into account, it reduces to an absurdity, because what is overall fairness but an account of many individual cases of fairness? Under that logic you could have something that is fair overall, but isn't fair to any individual person. But your definition seems to be the case where the most fair scenario is that where the number of cases where individuals are treated fairly will be maximized.

The 'needs of the many' argument is really just equivalent to the omelet argument. You should realize that many, VERY nasty things have been justified with that one. Murder, torture, you name it, under consequentialism anything goes as long as it leads to the best outcome. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just saying that you have to pick one or the other. Either some actions are inherently right or wrong, or actions should only be judged by their consequences.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

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.

You missed most of the argument. That's all a separate issue from what I was talking about. If it's not punishment, then fine. But labeling someone a cheater kinda seems like a punishment to me. I also wasn't saying that microsoft's actions were wrong, from their perspective they were doing everything by the book.

On a separate note, I think they removed ALL of his achievements whereas he only got one or two through cheating, which really seems bogus to me, regardless of the kid's circumstances. I think removing someone's bogus achievements and calling them a cheater is enough. Unless they've modded their Xbox, in which case they're not just cheaters, but have broken all sorts of other rules. Then they should probably be taken off Xbox live completely. Come to think of it, the person who gave the kid the achievements did that, so he should definitely be hunted down and have his xbox destroyed. The drug dealers are a lot worse than the drug users if you understand my analogy.

Oh sure you are right that the guy who did it should pay as well.

I gotta ask you something. If it was just some random non disabled person who had their score reset to 0 would you feel that that person should only have the achievements they can prove he cheated for removed? Since well just because they can prove he cheated for a few doesn't mean he didn't cheat for them all.

Definitely. It's about what you can prove. You can't convict someone of something unless you can prove it. I think the fact that they are labeled cheater is enough to imply to anyone that their other achievements are questionable. Like I said, this is divorced from any special circumstances or disabilities. To have cheated for just one achievement and then have all of your well earned achievements scratched is pretty messed up. I think having the label cheater is enough of a disincentive, it kind of makes your gamerscore meaningless as a bragging right. But like I said, if a person actually physically modifies their xbox then put the hammer to them.

Oh they catch you doing that it is the banhammer. They brick your console if they catch you doing that.

As well they should. I'm glad we agree on something.

 

[squid5580]

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.

You missed most of the argument. That's all a separate issue from what I was talking about. If it's not punishment, then fine. But labeling someone a cheater kinda seems like a punishment to me. I also wasn't saying that microsoft's actions were wrong, from their perspective they were doing everything by the book.

On a separate note, I think they removed ALL of his achievements whereas he only got one or two through cheating, which really seems bogus to me, regardless of the kid's circumstances. I think removing someone's bogus achievements and calling them a cheater is enough. Unless they've modded their Xbox, in which case they're not just cheaters, but have broken all sorts of other rules. Then they should probably be taken off Xbox live completely. Come to think of it, the person who gave the kid the achievements did that, so he should definitely be hunted down and have his xbox destroyed. The drug dealers are a lot worse than the drug users if you understand my analogy.

Oh sure you are right that the guy who did it should pay as well.

I gotta ask you something. If it was just some random non disabled person who had their score reset to 0 would you feel that that person should only have the achievements they can prove he cheated for removed? Since well just because they can prove he cheated for a few doesn't mean he didn't cheat for them all.

Definitely. It's about what you can prove. You can't convict someone of something unless you can prove it. I think the fact that they are labeled cheater is enough to imply to anyone that their other achievements are questionable. Like I said, this is divorced from any special circumstances or disabilities. To have cheated for just one achievement and then have all of your well earned achievements scratched is pretty messed up. I think having the label cheater is enough of a disincentive, it kind of makes your gamerscore meaningless as a bragging right. But like I said, if a person actually physically modifies their xbox then put the hammer to them.

Oh they catch you doing that it is the banhammer. They brick your console if they catch you doing that.

As well they should. I'm glad we agree on something.

We agree on alot more than you realize. I am not against giving special treatment to special people when it comes down to importance or neccesity. I am not against seeing a seeing eye dog in a restaurant. Or the special olympics. I think that is awesome. I know a few people who are involved with the SO and it does wonders for them. There is a slight difference between that and this. You see the SO have no impact on the other Olympics (winter, summer whatever). The seeing eye dog negatively effects no one. Cheaters on the other hand do. I love my achievements. I love competing for them. So what you have been saying is it is ok for MS to take something away from me, an innocent bystander, because he didn't know any better. I mean how is it fair or right for me to be punished for something someone else did wrong.

And I don't know if I mentioned this or not but how is only taking away the achievements they got caught cheating for a punishment or a detterent? I mean that isn't going to stop anyone from doing it at all. That is like getting busted for stealing and having to give the item back. There is no lesson there. You are just leaving the person in the same position that they started in. I am a firm believer in the punishment fitting the crime. And labelling a cheater on their gamercard and taking away all of their achievement points sounds like a fitting punishment to me.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

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.

You missed most of the argument. That's all a separate issue from what I was talking about. If it's not punishment, then fine. But labeling someone a cheater kinda seems like a punishment to me. I also wasn't saying that microsoft's actions were wrong, from their perspective they were doing everything by the book.

On a separate note, I think they removed ALL of his achievements whereas he only got one or two through cheating, which really seems bogus to me, regardless of the kid's circumstances. I think removing someone's bogus achievements and calling them a cheater is enough. Unless they've modded their Xbox, in which case they're not just cheaters, but have broken all sorts of other rules. Then they should probably be taken off Xbox live completely. Come to think of it, the person who gave the kid the achievements did that, so he should definitely be hunted down and have his xbox destroyed. The drug dealers are a lot worse than the drug users if you understand my analogy.

Oh sure you are right that the guy who did it should pay as well.

I gotta ask you something. If it was just some random non disabled person who had their score reset to 0 would you feel that that person should only have the achievements they can prove he cheated for removed? Since well just because they can prove he cheated for a few doesn't mean he didn't cheat for them all.

Definitely. It's about what you can prove. You can't convict someone of something unless you can prove it. I think the fact that they are labeled cheater is enough to imply to anyone that their other achievements are questionable. Like I said, this is divorced from any special circumstances or disabilities. To have cheated for just one achievement and then have all of your well earned achievements scratched is pretty messed up. I think having the label cheater is enough of a disincentive, it kind of makes your gamerscore meaningless as a bragging right. But like I said, if a person actually physically modifies their xbox then put the hammer to them.

Oh they catch you doing that it is the banhammer. They brick your console if they catch you doing that.

As well they should. I'm glad we agree on something.

We agree on alot more than you realize. I am not against giving special treatment to special people when it comes down to importance or neccesity. I am not against seeing a seeing eye dog in a restaurant. Or the special olympics. I think that is awesome. I know a few people who are involved with the SO and it does wonders for them. There is a slight difference between that and this. You see the SO have no impact on the other Olympics (winter, summer whatever). The seeing eye dog negatively effects no one. Cheaters on the other hand do. I love my achievements. I love competing for them. So what you have been saying is it is ok for MS to take something away from me, an innocent bystander, because he didn't know any better. I mean how is it fair or right for me to be punished for something someone else did wrong.

And I don't know if I mentioned this or not but how is only taking away the achievements they got caught cheating for a punishment or a detterent? I mean that isn't going to stop anyone from doing it at all. That is like getting busted for stealing and having to give the item back. There is no lesson there. You are just leaving the person in the same position that they started in. I am a firm believer in the punishment fitting the crime. And labelling a cheater on their gamercard and taking away all of their achievement points sounds like a fitting punishment to me.

See my other comment. My point was that it wasn't fair to the disabled person, not that it was fair to everyone else. Plus they aren't just taking away your achievements by cheating, if there is any loss on your part it is very slight and psychological. I was NEVER saying that it was fair to other gamers, it isn't, but that one scenario is just so different that it should make a difference.

As far as the deterrent goes, I'd say that the label 'cheater' is pretty much all you need really. It nullifies any gamerscore you might have. It would be even funnier if they labeled someone a cheater and gave them one billion gamerpoints because it would make anything they did completely meaningless and would be mocking them. Not that I'm saying they should do that, it would just be funny. But I reiterate, I think the cheater label does all of the work. I'd rather have them take away all my gamerpoints than just label me a cheater, even if I was allowed to keep them. Everyone on XBL will inevitably hassle you, you'd just have to create a new gamertag and there's not much else to it. At that point it doesn't really matter what your gamerscore is.

Not like it does in the first place, I know I don't really care about mine. Sometimes I like to complete them, but only on a game I really like, and not because it gives me some positive rush, but rather because it bothers me a little if I haven't. I don't really even like the gamerscore system, it just rewards you for consumerism basically. Mastering a game doesn't matter nearly as much as buying and playing a lot of games. It's a pretty blatant attempt at manipulation on the part of MS.