I don’t mean to be the guy trying to make too much levity out of a serious issue, but this is a great quote.
Can’t blame me for your taxes. But I will say that if you move to South Korea, you’ll only pay 3.3% (and your home nation will never know how much you’re making overseas anyway… so the IRS can shove its 35% after 70k up its ass)! Sure, some worry about North Korea, but it beats the hell out of worrying about your fellow Americans (a Korean commie never tried to steal my car stereo)! Though one could argue that by my not paying taxes in the US, I somehow become a burden to the economy. Yet that’s a whole 'nother thread.
That other stuff… sure. Pin it on me all you like. And now that I reread item D, I realize perhaps that came out the wrong way. None-the-less, it does have a nice ring to it. And I am not trying to make light of the situation either, but rather ensuring that my… and I can admit to this now… mistake is confined to where it actually happened.
[QUOTE=DennisBarry]
A) I still don’t think what I did was wrong or in anyway cheating [QUOTE=DennisBarry]
Im very tempted to use a Gunnery SGt Hartman quote here, you know, the one involving a reacharound, if you cant see what you did was cheating…
Ed Mills thinks cheating is ok. He has a right to whatever opinion he wants. But he also has to live with the opinions we form of him as a consequence.
Loraelin,
You should choose your words much more carefully. Ed Mills has never said that he believed cheating is ok. Having played with and against him for years I know him well enough that he does not condone cheating. You confuse his definition of what he feels is cheating with your definition of what you feel is cheating.
If a side or player has such lax security that they are providing free access to their planning is it the obligation of others to apprise them of their failure? I think Ed’s position is No it is not. I agree with that position. In fact the very same thing happened to me in a previous game. We had a player who was sending some of his emails to those not in the game. I still accept that until he was made aware of the fact that it was he who was sending material to unvetted readers that it was an honest mistake of oversight. The fact that certain enemy actions were taken that could only have been done if the other side was aware of who was doing what at a particular hex made me suspicious that we had a security leak but I could not prove it. Finally I asked the other side if this was the case and they not only admitted that they had read parts of our sides planning and coordination messages they sent me copies of enough of the messages that I could present to my side we had a leak and where it was. I do not feel that the other side did anything wrong. To have lied about the leak in my opinion would have amounted to cheating. However, until confronted with the question I don’t feel they were obligated to tell us anything. We still won the game by the way.
Ed was on that other side and was one of the ones who insisted that now that the cat was out of the bag that they should tell us that they had limited access to our communications and how that had come to be. Because of suspicions prior to that however myself and the the other American on the team had quit giving specific information about what we would do and had stopped sending our pdf information. This did create bad feelings within our own side, as it indicated mistrust of the other players. In the end it was justified mistrust and when the same thing happened again I felt it was intentional. The problem was at our end and did not amount to cheating by the opposition. No hacking was done the information was freely provided to the other side by our player. This is where you and Ed and myself and I feel others disagree on the definition of cheating.
To me cheating is when you do something in violation of the rules to get ahead. Such things have been discussed before. I believe The Canadian Brad asked what people thought of using a very similar email address to see if he could get the players to communicate with him thinking he was their ally. Whoever brought up the question was told it would be considered cheating. Ed looks at the gray area in the rules and seeks to gain advantage there. That is perfectly legal, misdirection, deception, lying to the enemy within the context of the game are all perfectly legal. It is even legal to establish a truce with the enemy to buy time for your nation. Not many would do such a thing but that does not make it cheating.
Don’t be so quick to call another a cheater, and to say someone thinks cheating is ok is to call them a cheater. Ed is a very good player of the game and wins much more often than he loses. He does not need to cheat to do so.
Interesting how the line of thought has moved about.
I myself have often thought selling your own side out is worse than spying on the enemy.
But then its all about perspective and both are not the done thing.
But it does beg the question that players who sell out there own side, or get up to other very dubious methods should they be outed?
Vandal
Brad, I agree with most of what you say. I didn’t think that Ed’s post was condoning cheating. Though Loraelin may say that you assumed his denunication of Ed was related to this thread and that, in fact, it isnt 
I took Ed’s post as saying that in “real war”, espionage is a fundamental part of it, and that MEPBM as a wargame can expect to have similar rules of engagement.
Here’s the thing. I may be a Yahoo adminstrator, or a superhacker, and I can read any damn group i want to, whether you set it up right or not. On (my understand of) Ed’s definition, and Dennis’s posts, I am entitled to hack my way into a position of absolute knowledge, right?
I dont think so.
I think Ed and Brad are missing the real underlying point. There are rules to any game. If you play within them and win, you have fairly and truly won. If you skirt the rules, or downright ignore them, then you have not fair and truly won. What are the rules? There-in lies the underlying question of this thread.
My fundamental claim is that any game needs rules that have a common and agreed-upon understanding/interpretation. To Dennis’ (originator of thread) credit, that is in essence what he was asking. Is the secret use of enemy plans, .pdfs, etc., a violation of the rules?
Ed’s quotations of the rulebook info on subterfuge and the like seems to be out-of-context in the opinion of most responders on this thread. Also, please note that the GSI rules were written in a pre-internet, pre-yahoo-group, pre-IM, pre-email (for the most part) era. I think it is his interpretation that the rules condone the type of behavior that started this thread. Apparently, the majority of players disagree with him, and now with you Brad. The majority of players seem to feel that it is wrong (call it cheating or whatever) for one side to get secret knowledge of the other side’s .pdfs, emails, yahoo group, etc through hacking, yahoo group access, etc. To “fess up” to the cheating after the fact does in no way repair the damage done.
Most people are also able to come to grips with the concept that real war, where real lives and real freedoms are at stake, is a very different environment than a PBM game over the internet. To claim that a war game should be under the same “no holds barred” reality as real war, is to say that we can essentially ignore all rules because in real war, the bottom line is that what matters is winning, at almost all costs. Note that in real war, real people are killed. Obviously such is not allowable in a PBM game. Thus, Ed’s fundamental argument is specious, and falls apart under any sort of scrutiny. Any game is only as good as the rules that govern it and the players’ ability and will to follow the rules. If different people are playing the game using varying rules or interpretations of the rules, then what is the point?
I am mystified that people don’t understand this.
Dave
i was involved in a couple of games many years ago where a group of players decided to divvy up and put a couple on our team and the rest on the opposition. We realised we had a leak and one of ‘our’ team dropped his nation by transferring its stores and gold etc to the enemy. Our game then got real nasty and we spent more time working out how to take out particular players on ‘our’ team and the opposition and lost all interest in playing properly.
This group sabotaged a few games and left a lot of really bad feelings around the place.
Selling your own team out is crap. Sacrificing yourself for your team is what makes it a team.
I strongly agree with the view; this is not REAL. If it was i would get an opponents address, go over and ‘convince’ him to share files. Would this be cheating or merely out of game diplomacy???
I could send a virus to opponents and crash them out. Is this merely espionage???
I can ‘wander’ into a list which I know i shouldn’t be in (due to opposition oversight), or i can hack in. The morality hasn’t really changed, just the ‘effort’ required.
I could choose only to play in games where I knew a particular person or ‘newbies’ were playing and exploit all my learned skills for an easy win.
Sure, you can do it, but should you. I think not…
There are a few times in life where you can afford a high moral standard. Here’s one, a few bucks a turn. Your standards may cost you a game and some points but you know that your victories and points earned are really that, victories and points EARNED.
Adrian
By the way - we had a game in the last year, where we SPECIFICALLY threw out some of the rules. It was an all neutral 1650 game where inter-nation alliances were fleeting and/or fluid. Subterfuge and trickery between players was expressley permitted as a part of the game rules from the beginning. it was well understood by all that such was the case. Given the rules of that game, you can be assured that .pdfs were flying around between different parties. They were traded as tender between nations, with a clear understanding of risks vs. hoped-for rewards. Marty Cinke won that game as NG. Kudos to him. Frankly he did so with a very minimal amount of trickery, subterfuge, etc. CJ Garnier came in 2nd (if I remember right), and he was masterful in his use of the “art” of diplomacy… <grin>
It is interesting that Ed Mills did not play in that game as I personally thought it would be very appealing to him given his posts.
So, it is possible to have games where there is more political freedom and where “anything goes”. All you have to do is agree up-front to what the rules are. Then everyone plays on that playing field (whatever it looks like).
David: As I explained, several times, I was on a two week hunting trip into the mountains when Brad and John set up the variant. They then broke the speed limit getting it operational. All up and running when I got around to checking the forum.
Colin: Are you, or are you not, the person who leaked Team Sarumen’s line up to Andy Wright’s team? Probably via your friend C.L. Your motives were noble?
Gentleme, consider this: There are a lot of game ‘also-rans’ out there. Mediate a few moments on what separates this game from the ‘also-rans’. Do any disquiwting thoughts arise?
As a computer illiterate I realize I am more likely to be a sigint victim than a sigint offender. I still try to practice OPSEC. I am not a fan of the excuse “Guys I’m a doofus and you shouldn’t exploit that failing in me”. There is hunting, gathering and having the apple land in your lap. There is nothing wrong with being a passive receiver of forbidden information. The person who drops the apple is at fault—not the lap it falls into.
Heavens I thought I felt my ears were tingling.
Which reminds me - one might also intentionally leave ones “group” open and stocked with fake pdfs. Ones neutral allies might “betray” you and tell the other team that the group was unlocked. Unfortunately, I am far, far too lazy to edit my pdfs. Someone much less lazy than myself should write a palantir to pdf turn editor
My interpretation of Ed’s argument is for individuals to take responsibility for themselves. I like his apple dropped into lap metaphor above… Hold onto your apples. When taking risks of trust and openness, accept that they are risks and if/when bad things happen, don’t complain - learn instead. Ed’s argument is bang on, frankly. Wish we had more of that thinking around the world.
Brad (VEO) - I agree 100% that people should take responsibility for their own actions.
However, searching Yahoo groups for MEPBM sites, then making a new yahoo id, then signing up for a MEPBM site of the opposition… This hardly seems like an apple falling in the lap. It sounds to me like going through the open gate to the unlocked barn, getting the ladder, carting it out into the apple orchard, climbing up with your apple-apron on, and picking willy-nilly. It is purposeful. The fact that the barn wasn’t locked, that the farmer wasn’t in the field, and that no policeman was there to arrest the apple thief, doesn’t change the crime.
Dave
If you choose to send your pdf to neutrals or who ever i agree that’s a risk of trust. Using a ‘private’ forum to discuss things is a bit different, you don’t feel that you are taking a risk i s’pose (i don’t use them). If you notice the door left open you should tell them (as has happened). Trawling for .com info is the job of google 
Adrian
Baa Baa Rox
My position is that if by their own lack of security someone has an open site or is through, a lack of security sending email to persons who should not be on the distribution in the first place then they bear the burden of this being used against them.
Your definition about hacking into sites that should be secure and reading their information is completely different from my position above. In such a case you are committing an act of commission. You are stealing information that the other team tried to secure. In this situation you are in my opinion cheating. However if they openly give that information to you and you do not have to work to get it then it is not your fault that they cannot keep their information secure.
It is one thing for someone to send me an email that was unsolicited giving me their plans, it is entirely different for me to misrepresent myself or hack into their group site.
Brad
I’m sorry the War of the Tethered Goat did not go the way you wanted. That however is no reason to begin to make things personnal on this thread.
Brad
I think this discussion is very important. Ideally a compromise could be reached so that everyone played the same game. My view is:
There is obviously a difference between aquiring information passively as opposed to proactively searching out information. Searching it out would include finding an open opponent yahoo group and accessing it, and should be viewed as cheating. The passive scenarios are more complex. If the information was passed on by mistake, the fool should be notified and the damage to the game restricted as much as possible. If the information was passed on intentionally by a traitor on a team, I think its quite ok to to use the information. Traitors occurs as consequence of poor team play, it could be disappointed neutral who didnt get what promised, it could be an original allies who feel that they have been sacrificed on behalf of the rest of the team etc. If they willingly pass on information I think that is clearly a part of the game. The same goes for neutrals. The consequences of beeing a traitor are many of course, but it shouldnt be outlawed.
Skage
ok just dont cheat.
whatever you think cheating is dont do it.
that is different for all.
if i leave my door unlocked does that mean i want you in my house???
that would be up to you to decide. We all know the numbers of options that leaves to the imagination.
William