Do you think Adderall or its variants give an unfair advantage?

[God Confirm]

But people with ADHD are at a disadvantage and the drug is just giving them a chance to be on a even level.

The drug (well at least similar drugs) do not have strictly no effect on people without ADHD. I was "diagnosed" with it as a child and put on Ritalin, the benefits were real and they definitely improved my focus just in general, HOWEVER - it was a false diagnosis and 3 other doctors afterwards found I definitely didn't have ADHD and shouldn't be prescribed the drug any further.

For some people, the benefits simply counteract their natural negatives, and are worth the negative repercussions of the drug. Other people have personalities that will see less benefit from it. However like everything when it comes to human nature and behavior, nothing is black and white, and there is most definitely a middle ground where people can focus just fine without it, but will gain an advantage that they shouldn't otherwise have by taking it. I think most people will find some benefits to their gameplay while on a drug like adderall however significant or insignificant they may be depending on the users personality on they may be, and in a competitive scene I don't see any way to describe this but an unfair advantage.

 

[God Confirm]

But people with ADHD are at a disadvantage and the drug is just giving them a chance to be on a even level.

also, that natural disadvantage is fair and part of competition - while people with ADHD may naturally have less focus, they may possibly have naturally have better muscle memory or reactions than others. If they don't, well too bad, they are just naturally worse at this game as other players, and thats what competition is about, finding the natural best player. What if I suck at short term memory and muscle control, and used to macro's to input my combo's just to "put me on an even playing field". No, its an unfair advantage, the whole point of competing is having competitors duke it out with their natural skill, strengths and weaknesses combined - not using drugs to counteract any natural weaknesses you can plug. That being said, Adderall is a quality of life drug for people with ADHD, and thats much more important than any video game competition integrity. However, any positive effects from outside medication, however justified they may be, are by definition an unfair advantage.

 

[Scoot Magee]

If you don't behave how we want you to it must be a chemical imbalance. You must take this drug to function "normally"

ADHD is bullshit.

 

[Doombawkz]

If you don't behave how we want you to it must be a chemical imbalance. You must take this drug to function "normally"

ADHD is bullshit.

You know they have these cool machines that actually look into people's brains and see how they work.
ADHD patients have definitively different brain scans than normal people, or people with most other mental diseases.
So I mean they don't just say "you're too hyper, eat this". I mean some do, but the actual medical science behind the existence of ADHD is sound.

also, that natural disadvantage is fair and part of competition - while people with ADHD may naturally have less focus, they may possibly have naturally have better muscle memory or reactions than others. If they don't, well too bad, they are just naturally worse at this game as other players, and thats what competition is about, finding the natural best player. What if I suck at short term memory and muscle control, and used to macro's to input my combo's just to "put me on an even playing field". No, its an unfair advantage, the whole point of competing is having competitors duke it out with their natural skill, strengths and weaknesses combined - not using drugs to counteract any natural weaknesses you can plug. That being said, Adderall is a quality of life drug for people with ADHD, and thats much more important than any video game competition integrity. However, any positive effects from outside medication, however justified they may be, are by definition an unfair advantage.

Spoiler

I enjoy your opinions because they are justified, however I am also still sound in my disagreeance.
If you want to get technical, headphones aren't universally worn by players but they still do, they apply that artificial buffer to improve performance.
In no way does that show who is naturally the best player, since they have an unnatural means of improving performance.
Likewise, as I've said, the benefits of taking Adderall in those situations are incredibly miniscule, to the point where if we did the sonicfox vs neo sonic fox, the matches would still end up 5-5 even if one was doped on adderall, if not playing into his disadvantage.

Not to bring up old examples, but if we put glasses on one player instead of the other, would they inevitably do better even if their eyes didn't need it?
If we dimmed the lights in the room, would one player do better even if they didn't suffer from hypersensitivity?
If we made the stage symmetrical, would one player do better even if they weren't OCD?
If we let them play in a seperate room, would one player do better even if they didn't have social anxiety?

Assuming that an artificial "benefit" works simply because it HAS to increase performance somehow is as much as saying that because a tech worked on REO that it HAS to work on someone else.
Even assuming someone fit that incredibly small niche where there was any performance boost in any way that was marginal enough to make even a small difference in the flow of a match...
Not only would that not last them long enough to make any difference in the long run, but the natural resistance to it would increase to the point where they'll be OD'ing to have any effect.
Let me make a note that Adderall's benefits do not function at peak for the entire time, you hit the peak about 4 hours in and then it hits a decline.

Also the side effects (I.E. risks of misuse) are stuff like...
Loss of appetite, weight loss, dry mouth, stomach upset/pain, nausea/vomiting,dizziness, headache, diarrhea, fever, nervousness, numbness/pain/skin color change/sensitivity to temperature in the fingers or toes, mental/mood/behavior changes (such as agitation, aggression, mood swings, depression, abnormal thoughts, thoughts of suicide), uncontrolled movements, continuous chewing movements/teeth grinding, outbursts of words/sounds, change in sexual ability/desire, frequent/prolonged erections, shortness of breath, chest/jaw/left arm pain, fainting, severe headache, fast/pounding/irregular heartbeat, seizures, swelling of the ankles/feet, extreme tiredness, blurred vision, weakness on one side of the body, slurred speech, confusion.

Just pulling off of the basics, and I can note that pretty much all of these barring weight loss and slurred speech would probably not be good for you during a match.
Also unlike the "benefits" of taking the drug, these effects are persistent, meaning if you happen across even one of them, you'd better hope whatever you get out of using the drug is enough to compensate because you'll be having about 3 or 4 hours of whatever side effect you encounter.
Now these side effects aren't promised either, mind you I wouldn't say they were, but they are far more likely due to the person taking the drug without a prescription than you are to get some clairvoyance into your opponent.

I guess to tl;dr it again: "natural" players use unnatural means as it is, being headphones, so that ideal is a bit debunked. Using Adderall has some nasty side effects, and nearly no benefit. To assume there would be a definite benefit is to disregard the existence of these side effects which mostly stem from misuse (I.E. using it without prescription), and to assume that any effect that applies any benefit would do so universally. If we are going to ban Adderall from people who need it, we'll need to ban literally everything people use medically that sets them apart (including sound cues for players like Rattlehead, inhalers for people with asthma, advil and asprins, so on and so forth). Such an idea probably wasn't intended to be portrayed as such, but thats where it leads. The moment you ban one supplement because of its perceived benefit to players to the point where a player who would lose otherwise would somehow win (despite there being clear evidence to the contrary and him likely being worse off both in the short and long run) you have to accept that every supplement would have to likewise be banned because of this idea of a "natural" player who should win without any means aside from what they came with.

Mind you, these sound cues were built INTO THE GAME by the people who made it in order to ensure that players whom otherwise cannot be the best players naturally still have a fair chance. The game has the means by which your idea of the "natural best player" is incorrect. Also the comparison of macros isn't exactly right in the context of what we are discussing... Macros can be universally beneficial to people and abused by people who need them to clear benefit with no downside. Sound cues do not benefit aside from those who need them, and taking Adderall likely has little to no benefit and huge downsides if you don't medically need it.

 

[God Confirm]

You know they have these cool machines that actually look into people's brains and see how they work.
ADHD patients have definitively different brain scans than normal people, or people with most other mental diseases.
So I mean they don't just say "you're too hyper, eat this". I mean some do, but the actual medical science behind the existence of ADHD is sound.

For real? Is this more recent technology? About 15 years ago when it was me, they tried diagnosing based off behavior, wish this was a thing back then.

Spoiler

I enjoy your opinions because they are justified, however I am also still sound in my disagreeance.
If you want to get technical, headphones aren't universally worn by players but they still do, they apply that artificial buffer to improve performance.
In no way does that show who is naturally the best player, since they have an unnatural means of improving performance.
Likewise, as I've said, the benefits of taking Adderall in those situations are incredibly miniscule, to the point where if we did the sonicfox vs neo sonic fox, the matches would still end up 5-5 even if one was doped on adderall, if not playing into his disadvantage.

Not to bring up old examples, but if we put glasses on one player instead of the other, would they inevitably do better even if their eyes didn't need it?
If we dimmed the lights in the room, would one player do better even if they didn't suffer from hypersensitivity?
If we made the stage symmetrical, would one player do better even if they weren't OCD?
If we let them play in a seperate room, would one player do better even if they didn't have social anxiety?

Assuming that an artificial "benefit" works simply because it HAS to increase performance somehow is as much as saying that because a tech worked on REO that it HAS to work on someone else.
Even assuming someone fit that incredibly small niche where there was any performance boost in any way that was marginal enough to make even a small difference in the flow of a match...
Not only would that not last them long enough to make any difference in the long run, but the natural resistance to it would increase to the point where they'll be OD'ing to have any effect.
Let me make a note that Adderall's benefits do not function at peak for the entire time, you hit the peak about 4 hours in and then it hits a decline.

Also the side effects (I.E. risks of misuse) are stuff like...
Loss of appetite, weight loss, dry mouth, stomach upset/pain, nausea/vomiting,dizziness, headache, diarrhea, fever, nervousness, numbness/pain/skin color change/sensitivity to temperature in the fingers or toes, mental/mood/behavior changes (such as agitation, aggression, mood swings, depression, abnormal thoughts, thoughts of suicide), uncontrolled movements, continuous chewing movements/teeth grinding, outbursts of words/sounds, change in sexual ability/desire, frequent/prolonged erections, shortness of breath, chest/jaw/left arm pain, fainting, severe headache, fast/pounding/irregular heartbeat, seizures, swelling of the ankles/feet, extreme tiredness, blurred vision, weakness on one side of the body, slurred speech, confusion.

Just pulling off of the basics, and I can note that pretty much all of these barring weight loss and slurred speech would probably not be good for you during a match.
Also unlike the "benefits" of taking the drug, these effects are persistent, meaning if you happen across even one of them, you'd better hope whatever you get out of using the drug is enough to compensate because you'll be having about 3 or 4 hours of whatever side effect you encounter.
Now these side effects aren't promised either, mind you I wouldn't say they were, but they are far more likely due to the person taking the drug without a prescription than you are to get some clairvoyance into your opponent.

I guess to tl;dr it again: "natural" players use unnatural means as it is, being headphones, so that ideal is a bit debunked. Using Adderall has some nasty side effects, and nearly no benefit. To assume there would be a definite benefit is to disregard the existence of these side effects which mostly stem from misuse (I.E. using it without prescription), and to assume that any effect that applies any benefit would do so universally. If we are going to ban Adderall from people who need it, we'll need to ban literally everything people use medically that sets them apart (including sound cues for players like Rattlehead, inhalers for people with asthma, advil and asprins, so on and so forth). Such an idea probably wasn't intended to be portrayed as such, but thats where it leads. The moment you ban one supplement because of its perceived benefit to players to the point where a player who would lose otherwise would somehow win (despite there being clear evidence to the contrary and him likely being worse off both in the short and long run) you have to accept that every supplement would have to likewise be banned because of this idea of a "natural" player who should win without any means aside from what they came with.

Mind you, these sound cues were built INTO THE GAME by the people who made it in order to ensure that players whom otherwise cannot be the best players naturally still have a fair chance. The game has the means by which your idea of the "natural best player" is incorrect. Also the comparison of macros isn't exactly right in the context of what we are discussing... Macros can be universally beneficial to people and abused by people who need them to clear benefit with no downside. Sound cues do not benefit aside from those who need them, and taking Adderall likely has little to no benefit and huge downsides if you don't medically need it.

OK well if this is the reasoning going towards anyone voting "no", then while I don't necessarily agree with it, I can definitely understand the poll results. This is a very hard line to draw and probably quite debatable. I cant even fully counter everything you are saying, because the logic is there.

However there is a difference. The gear/tech that you take to a game, headphones, Hitbpx controller, posture pillow, whatever it is you are taking to feel comfortable, this is stuff if anyone else brings, they will also be able to match whatever you brang to the table, with no ill effects either. However, putting performance enhancing drugs in that category is NOT the same from my perspective - it has completely different levels of benefits for different people, and it has serious health issue side effects that you mentioned to boot. I'm not sure why you are mentioning all the side effects because that just supports my point, you shouldn't have to put yourself through that just because your opponent is willing to just to match their commitment, in fact its very poor lifestyle decision to do so to say the least lol, and thats where I start to draw the line at "unfair". You fighting/running/swimming/competing gear that is the same for everyone? Not unfair, at least in the sense of competition. Maybe can turn into a bit of a monetary barrier and maybe that could be argued as an unfair advantage, but I think that's a whole different argument right there right.

It's a difficult topic. We are all very aware that we are dealing in hypotheticals anyway as you could never regulate banning the stuff outside of kicking the morons who openly admit taking it without being prescribed it, but thats pretty much as far as you could regulate it. The ethics of it to me say, that taking Adderall that I've not been prescribed, purely because I think it will give me an advantage in a tournament, is pretty unfair if I'm right (and stupid either way). Would you agree with that?

 

[Doombawkz]

Spoiler

The thing for me is that yeah, taking Adderall under the perception that you are cheating the system could be regarded in the way that some people would see it s cheating, hence why I said your view is justified.
However, the issue is that taking Adderall more often than not doesn't provide any net benefit. The perception that something is cheating, and the ability to actually gain benefit (enabling cheating to take place) are different.

I could think that me being able to see my opponent's controller is cheating (and some do, and provide visual barriers between hitboxes/controllers). However, if I don't gain any actual benefit from it, is it cheating?
Like you intend to steal something, but if you never leave the store with it, then its not stealing. Theres some legal terms called mens rea and actus reus, being the guilty mind and the guilty act.
To provide someone with a crime without one of those two won't stand up in a court, and thats where the problem lies.

If we consider it as the idea of gaining an advantage by taking adderall provides the guilty mind, and the taking of it as the guilty act, then yes its cheating in that regard.
However, at the same time one could say that while the idea remains, the lack of an actual advantage nullifies the act. The punishment is self-inflicted, so to say.

The reason I note the side effects is because it does promote your point, and your point is not per se wrong. Its good debate etiquette to admit when opposing views have valid stances.
The perception I have though is the idea of spam, humor me if you will...

The act of spamming (say full-auto jacqui) has some definite benefits, the old "isn't broke, don't fix it" type deal. However, using it as a crutch damages the player in the long run.
Likewise, spamming a good move does not automatically make one a better player, though it provides clear advantages in some matches, at the top level it won't get you far.
Now then, lets say someone (throwing out a random pleb name like xXxSasukeItachi420KillxXx) went to a tournament and fought another player, and spammed.

HE as the player, thinks that spamming is providing him with a clear advantage. In a way, his perception is spamming is cheating but can't be enforced.
Other people may try spamming to better or worse result, so spamming has differentiation between players and opponents.
However, the act of spamming (as many know or don't know) doesn't provide ACTUAL benefit in the competitive scene, the few marginal possible benefits against specific people or for specific people being outweighed by the detriments.

Now assuming this point, one would assume that the player is punishing themselves and that while they may regard it as cheating, it is not actually cheating because they don't reap any benefit from it.

Also assuming this point, if one were to replace the term "spam" with "Adderall" and subsequent related phrases with proper context, the case remains almost the same.

The act of taking Adderall (say XL 12 hour doses) has some benefits, the old "medically increases focus" type deal. However, using it as a crutch damages the player in the long run.
Likewise, taking Adderall does not automatically make one a better player, though it provides clear advantages in some people (people who need it), at the top level it won't get you far.
Now then, lets say someone went to a tournament and fought another player, and took Adderall.

HE as the player, thinks that taking Adderall is providing him with a clear advantage. In a way, his perception is Adderall is cheating but can't be enforced.
Other people may try Adderall to better or worse result, so Adderall has differentiation between players and opponents.
However, the act of taking Adderall (as many know or don't know) doesn't provide ACTUAL benefit in the competitive scene, the few marginal possible benefits against specific people or for specific people being outweighed by the detriments.


Yes, I do know spamming and Adderall are different at their cores, but do we punish one for attempting to cheat but failing and punishing themselves?

Is it cheating if the other person thinks its cheating, or is it cheating once benefit is drawn?

On one hand, we could regard a lot of things as cheating, even if they aren't beneficial, and thus this creates a big grey area. What do we punish people for, acts they haven't committed? Acts they try to commit but fail to do? Acts we perceive as cheating, even if they don't give you an advantage? Where does it stop?

On the other hand, players attempting to cheat the system create the issue that, if they succeeded somehow, then it would be definitively cheating. It is only by regards to their failure that they do not "cheat" but attempt to do so.

tl;dr : Do we punish people who are "cheating", or people who have "cheated".

Also to answer your first question, the technology wasn't available when we were kids, it was there but still in development. Its starting to pick up a lot of steam though, and its been around for about a decade or so.

 

[TemperingMoon]

THIS JUST IN : ADDERALL MAY ENHANCE GAMEPLAY DURING MKX TOURNAMENTS !!! Side effects may include....

 

[Eldriken]

If you don't behave how we want you to it must be a chemical imbalance. You must take this drug to function "normally"

ADHD is bullshit.

Actually, no, it isn't. Like Doombawkz pointed out, it's not as simple as asking a question, responding with the appropriate answer and then boom, you're diagnosed with ADHD.

My oldest daughter got diagnosed with it and it was based off of the NICHQ Vanderbilt Assessment on top of actual tests that monitored her brain activity.

You're a cool guy and all, Scoot, but you really ought to look more into what you're claiming is bullshit before saying that it's bullshit.

 

[Doombawkz]

Actually, no, it isn't. Like Doombawkz pointed out, it's not as simple as asking a question, responding with the appropriate answer and then boom, you're diagnosed with ADHD.

My oldest daughter got diagnosed with it and it was based off of the NICHQ Vanderbilt Assessment on top of actual tests that monitored her brain activity.

You're a cool guy and all, Scoot, but you really ought to look more into what you're claiming is bullshit before saying that it's bullshit.

You can call me...
Doctor Doom(bawkz)

 

[Mitsuownes]

Who cares about Adderall when most people actually do drugs before tournaments?

 

[Scoot Magee]

You know they have these cool machines that actually look into people's brains and see how they work.
ADHD patients have definitively different brain scans than normal people, or people with most other mental diseases.
So I mean they don't just say "you're too hyper, eat this". I mean some do, but the actual medical science behind the existence of ADHD is sound.

Spoiler

I enjoy your opinions because they are justified, however I am also still sound in my disagreeance.
If you want to get technical, headphones aren't universally worn by players but they still do, they apply that artificial buffer to improve performance.
In no way does that show who is naturally the best player, since they have an unnatural means of improving performance.
Likewise, as I've said, the benefits of taking Adderall in those situations are incredibly miniscule, to the point where if we did the sonicfox vs neo sonic fox, the matches would still end up 5-5 even if one was doped on adderall, if not playing into his disadvantage.

Not to bring up old examples, but if we put glasses on one player instead of the other, would they inevitably do better even if their eyes didn't need it?
If we dimmed the lights in the room, would one player do better even if they didn't suffer from hypersensitivity?
If we made the stage symmetrical, would one player do better even if they weren't OCD?
If we let them play in a seperate room, would one player do better even if they didn't have social anxiety?

Assuming that an artificial "benefit" works simply because it HAS to increase performance somehow is as much as saying that because a tech worked on REO that it HAS to work on someone else.
Even assuming someone fit that incredibly small niche where there was any performance boost in any way that was marginal enough to make even a small difference in the flow of a match...
Not only would that not last them long enough to make any difference in the long run, but the natural resistance to it would increase to the point where they'll be OD'ing to have any effect.
Let me make a note that Adderall's benefits do not function at peak for the entire time, you hit the peak about 4 hours in and then it hits a decline.

Also the side effects (I.E. risks of misuse) are stuff like...
Loss of appetite, weight loss, dry mouth, stomach upset/pain, nausea/vomiting,dizziness, headache, diarrhea, fever, nervousness, numbness/pain/skin color change/sensitivity to temperature in the fingers or toes, mental/mood/behavior changes (such as agitation, aggression, mood swings, depression, abnormal thoughts, thoughts of suicide), uncontrolled movements, continuous chewing movements/teeth grinding, outbursts of words/sounds, change in sexual ability/desire, frequent/prolonged erections, shortness of breath, chest/jaw/left arm pain, fainting, severe headache, fast/pounding/irregular heartbeat, seizures, swelling of the ankles/feet, extreme tiredness, blurred vision, weakness on one side of the body, slurred speech, confusion.

Just pulling off of the basics, and I can note that pretty much all of these barring weight loss and slurred speech would probably not be good for you during a match.
Also unlike the "benefits" of taking the drug, these effects are persistent, meaning if you happen across even one of them, you'd better hope whatever you get out of using the drug is enough to compensate because you'll be having about 3 or 4 hours of whatever side effect you encounter.
Now these side effects aren't promised either, mind you I wouldn't say they were, but they are far more likely due to the person taking the drug without a prescription than you are to get some clairvoyance into your opponent.

I guess to tl;dr it again: "natural" players use unnatural means as it is, being headphones, so that ideal is a bit debunked. Using Adderall has some nasty side effects, and nearly no benefit. To assume there would be a definite benefit is to disregard the existence of these side effects which mostly stem from misuse (I.E. using it without prescription), and to assume that any effect that applies any benefit would do so universally. If we are going to ban Adderall from people who need it, we'll need to ban literally everything people use medically that sets them apart (including sound cues for players like Rattlehead, inhalers for people with asthma, advil and asprins, so on and so forth). Such an idea probably wasn't intended to be portrayed as such, but thats where it leads. The moment you ban one supplement because of its perceived benefit to players to the point where a player who would lose otherwise would somehow win (despite there being clear evidence to the contrary and him likely being worse off both in the short and long run) you have to accept that every supplement would have to likewise be banned because of this idea of a "natural" player who should win without any means aside from what they came with.

Mind you, these sound cues were built INTO THE GAME by the people who made it in order to ensure that players whom otherwise cannot be the best players naturally still have a fair chance. The game has the means by which your idea of the "natural best player" is incorrect. Also the comparison of macros isn't exactly right in the context of what we are discussing... Macros can be universally beneficial to people and abused by people who need them to clear benefit with no downside. Sound cues do not benefit aside from those who need them, and taking Adderall likely has little to no benefit and huge downsides if you don't medically need it.

That's pretty cool that they have machines like that. Most I've heard and read up on is that add and adhd are specifically diagnosed through behavior tests by a psychiatrist.

I still think it's full of shit. I understand if you disagree with me. I just think they really go out of their way to pin a name to different types of behavior and classify it as a disease. I think in the long run this practice will hurt more than help. Not to mention they over diagnose the shit out of everything.

Not trying to disrespect anyone but I am not a believer in this. The United States has drugged the shit out of our kids yet in places like France they tend to use therapy to get to the bottom of the issue.

 

[smokey]

Adderall is definitely a bonus. Might not make a shitter into a superstar but if you are already a top player then no doubt it will give you an edge on the competition. Would love to see some top players hitting real stims before the game though, if only for the face cams.

 

[Scoot Magee]

My main issue with ADHD is the over diagnosis and the reliance on prescription drugs instead of actual therapy

 

[GAV]

It hasn't been around long enough for anyone to know the actual long term effects. Buyer Beware...

 

[Rearawt]

I still think it's full of shit. I understand if you disagree with me.

The existence of ADHD is not really a matter you can just disagree with though. That's not an opinion.

 

[Scoot Magee]

The existence of ADHD is not really a matter you can just disagree with though. That's not an opinion.

I didn't say it doesn't exist. ADHD is used to define certain behavior as disease and in America is mostly treated by drugs. Imo most issues related to behavior can be remedied with discipline and therapy as opposed to drugs. That's why I think treatment related to adhd is full of shit.

ADHD is real because the behaviors that are defined as adhd symptoms are real. I think a lot of these behaviors are typically common in a lot of children.

 

[Doombawkz]

Scoot doesn't think ADHD is a myth, per se. I can understand that.
What he takes issue with is the overdiagnosis of it. Basically he disagrees that every kid who is a little hyper needs to be doped up.
Which, in fairness, he isn't wrong. It is put out as a diagnosis a lot, and often incorrectly.

 

[omooba]

I'm not wanting to discuss regulations or such. I'm specifically asking if taking Adderall or anything like it REMOVES THE SKILL GAP.

If I were to take like 100MG of Adderall, would I suddenly be able to beat the likes of Sonic Fox, A F0xy Grampa (I spelled it right, @PND_Ketchup ), etc? I say the answer is no.

Makes a huge difference. Most of you guys might not be able to tell because you've never been on it but it helps you reactions a lot

 

[Rice]

I took one pill yesterday and beat Daigo in SF and SonicFox in MKX back to back.

 

[SpiceWeasel]

If a bunch of grown men are traveling to play video games I would consider it weird for them to not be on drugs