[Dalewyn]

Here's the thing though: How do you know a player cheated? Because you caught him. So what about all the cheaters who are never caught? You can't say they're cheaters.

Therefore, if a player cheats but is never caught, he isn't a cheater. If a player isn't a cheater, whatever he did is legitimate and it isn't a problem.

Therefore: Cheating is only a problem if you're caught.

Put another way, the rules only tell you there will be consequences if you are caught breaking them. The rules do not and cannot police the act of cheating itself, only the results of such actions and only if the act of cheating becomes known.

So the optimal way to play a game to win is always to play skillfully /and also/ cheat without getting caught. Not cheating is not optimal to winning. It is absolutely a high risk, high return course of action, but that's the nature of optimizing.

[samatman]

You seem to think, and I don't agree, that "cheater" is like "felon", a label which is applied after some process.

I consider it like "thief". A thief is a thief when they thieve. A cheater is a cheat when they cheat.

[moron4hire]

If all you care about is the prize money, then there are easier ways to rob people, e.g. at gunpoint on their way out of the competition venue. The Rules say "If Person X does Y, then Person X gets Z". You want to rationalize interrupting that process to take Z for yourself. Y could be "their job" and Z could be "their salary". I suppose, in your terms, highway robbery is also a "high risk, high return course of action".

But entering into the competition under the guise of legitimate play means you also care about the prestige of being declared the winner. But you haven't won the game. You've played a completely different game. You can claim to have played the same game, but that would be a lie. You could just as easily redefine "narcissistic sociopath" in your own head to exclude adhering to The Rules. But it'd still be a lie.

I see in your other comments in this thread that you claim "most people finish dead last in life", intimating that they are fools for not cheating. But that's the thing: if everyone cheated, it would be a complete breakdown of society. Rules, laws, and systems to enforce them, are how we can leave our houses in the morning without wearing bulletproof armor from head to toe.

But what do I know? I only have a happy life with my wife and two kids. I'm a loser. So go! Cheat at science and get that Nobel Prize money! Cheat at keeping your restaurant clean and pocket the savings on soap! Never mind the wasted time and resources and lives ruined. You're a winner.

[Dalewyn]

>you claim "most people finish dead last in life"

I made no such claim. I stated that, quote: "... Honest people finish dead last in the race known as life."

>if everyone cheated, it would be a complete breakdown of society.

Human society has always been, always is, and always will be rife with cheaters of varying degrees and impact. Some will be caught, most won't be.

[wruza]

I cannot agree. First, your position comes with an assumption that one feels okay when cheating. Many people simply do not, for personal integrity, anxiety and other reasons.

Also, if you expect a game to bring profits in a long run, risk assessment may become too complex, if you can be caught retrospectively (like that top-score trackmania guy for example). Some people understand it from the beginning and decide to not put themselves into an unstable trap for life, even if cheating is compatible with their values.

You’re right that games (businesses, situations) themselves may have a long-term model which includes cheating as an optimal solution. But assuming that people playing it are all cheating sociopaths is incorrect. Tbh, your persistence all over this subthread is a sign that you have some sort of a close personal relationship with this topic.