Brad,
sorry if I missed your point. If your point is that intel given to you by an enemy is yours to do with as you may, I agree completely with you. an email sent to you “by mistake” is certainly such a piece of intel. This thread was started with a different scenario described. In the described scenario, the person actually went and actively worked on yahoo to get the information. It was not sent to them by an enemy.
See my prior description of apple thief in the unguarded apple orchard.
To be clear, I agree that 3x5 cards and emails sent and postings on this BBS, and such are all means of misinformation, subterfuge, etc that are within the confines of the present rules. I have no quarrel with any of these methods.
Caveat Emptor…
But, I feel that the original scenario described that started this thread is indeed cheating. I’m unclear if you think it’s cheating, or if your interpretation is that it’s an “apple falling in a lap”. If you agree it’s cheating, then you and I seem to be in agreement. If not, well, reasonable people can disagree.
That said, the point of my post that seemed to guile you is that I strongly stated that there should be a common understanding of the rules of the game. I continue to believe that. This thread is helping the player community wrestle with this.
Ed’s not claiming that he’s an extroverted cheat, I certainly am not. But the point is that it’s possible, and our record as human beings is such that where possibility exists, probability exists, and reality is sure to follow.
Having accepted that on a philosophical level, then it’s just a matter of getting over the “it can’t happen to me” machismo of immaturity and saying “Hmm. Look what just happened to me. What can I do in the future to ensure it doesn’t happen again? (or reduce such a probability)”
What’s the reality? Point fingers? Cast blame? Feel morally superior? Doesn’t change the circumstances. So get over it, deal with Reality, and learn from the experience. Everything else is psycho-drama.
For example: read the fine print when you set up a yahoo group. Dont’ believe the guy on the forum is actually the neutral he claims to be until he replies to the Diplo that MEGames sent to him on your behalf. Don’t accept membership requests from email addresses not on your turn email sourced from MEGames until that person is fully vetted, etc.
What a deeply depressing statement. With some very jaundiced element of truth in it.
Since we are a society, we have some ability to agree what is acceptable behaviour and then police that behaviour (or expect that Clint does so)
All that is good and sensible stuff. But there is a little more to this matter than “OPSEC” (or being careful as the less excitable amongst us might call it). “Be upstanding yourself and demand the same from others” is a more positive stance than “Expect the beggars to try and do you over and mitigate the risk”.
The reality is that you need some of the latter - but unless you also have the former then life would really become quite unpleasant.
Gentlemen, an important point was made above. This is a fantasy game. That is why it is inappropriate to apply Real World ethical systems to it. The ethical system that applies is that of the Epic, as interpreted by Stassun and Feild, the game creators.
Now if I want Real World ethics all I have to do is go out the door. In ME it would be nice to do something else and be governed by a different standard. Now I know there are people who combine linear thinking and moral certainty. Playacting for these persons is an alien concept.
Hope for the best and expect the worst. Expecting and demanding and using phrases like “people should” is idealistic. Create rules, enforce rules. Everyone who plays is not “expected” to follow the rules, in my opinion, but “expected to suffer the consequences of their actions”… If you leave your files open to the public, there might be consequences to suffer. If there are clearly defined anti-out-of-game espionage rules and you’re caught breaking them, there might be consequences to suffer. It’s all the same to me.
But there are not clearly defined rules updated to current technology. It’s a case-by-case basis. Which has advantages, but there should be baseline rules I feel. “No hacking” seems like a pretty blatant one, for example.
Interesting. While I can be certain from following the posts on this thread that this is a very touchy subject for many, I find it intriguing that Dennis be put on varying people’s “black-list” for posing a question. Granted, I strongly suspect that his actions never held much altruism. The more likely reason would be a driving necessity to “Stir the Pot.”
None the less, I don’t see why his ethical standings have anything to do with how anyone else plays the game. Obviously it never occured to the individual that created the group that it might be “infiltrated.” But, now that the threat is known, why is it such a tragedy that the precaution of blocking access must be taken?
Here’s a question for you. Why are there locks on car doors?
Answer: To keep honest people honest. A car thief will steal your car. Enough determination will win out every time. No, the locks are there to prevent temptation of normally honest people into doing something wrong.
So, Gentlemen…Ladies…
My suggestion would be to “Lock your doors,” and not think twice about the people that might “knock” uninvited.
So do you agree Colin that the following scenario would be cheating:
A neutral (for instance Harad) dupes an aligned player (oh, let’s say QA) into sending the QA PDF to the still-neutral Harad player on the promise said neutral will declare dark servant. Upon receiving the QA turn, Harad player then immediately launches an attack on QA and declares FP along with Corsair. (Ring any bells?) Lying and duplicity are not prohibited by the GSI rulebook, yet I assume you would consider the above actions cheating? I personally do not consider the actions of this ‘hypothetical’ Harad player cheating (I just think the QA player was foolish), but considering your comment above, I assume you would…?
Drew,
i think the answer to your question is clear given the rule book:
your hypothetical Harad player is a liar, not a cheater.
Clint,
you’ve been strangely silent on this topic. As this topic specifically relates to rules, and as you are the ultimate arbiter of the rules, I would like to request that you clarify what is cheating and what is not? Certainly you’ve seen a lot of opinions on the topic.
hear hear, what’s the word on updating rules also?
As for the scenario, if the Harad player took the QA turn without QA consent (hacked, stole, whatever), it would be cheating. As Dave says, he is a liar, and the QA, arguable, not very smart. If I was a DS, I would be quite annoyed - to prove declaration I make a neutral send me their turn before they get any of mine.
I don’t really think Dennis cares that much about being on someone’s black list. If he did, he probably would not have started this thread to begin with.
I personally think it is cheating, but others disagree. Being a game, even one we pay to play, everyone can play it how that want to. I personally would rather play someone that wants to outplay me on the battlefield.
I will simply choose not to play against people that think hacking in, or going through an open door is part of the game. As I am sure their are people that don’t wish to play in games that I am involved in.
The hypothetical scenario that started this thread isn’t prohibited by the rulebook either, so it’s not cheating, right? But I see where you and most of the other posters seem to think it is. I’m a little confused that you see my ‘hypothetical’ scenario as clearly not cheating, while the phish-the-yahoogroup thing is cheating, when neither are specifically prohibited by rule (and in fact, Ed’s quotation of the rules should lead a reasonable person to believe neither are, indeed, “cheating”)…
Problem I see Drew, and I think others do as well, that the “rules” are about 20 years out of date. Equate it to taking someone’s turn from the mail, opening it, reading it, and then resealing it and delivering it to their house in a way they never know. The rules are jsut too darned old.
And to piggyback Dave’s comment with yours…Why is it more wrong to take advantage of someone’s goodwill by lying and tricking them into turning over classified information, than it is to take advantage of their foolishly designed yahoogroup?
Rules are rules. Ya gotta play by 'em regardless of how old they are, etc., until they are changed. Reading someone’s mail (whether that person knows his mail has been tampered with or not) is specifically prohibited by law, reading someone’s yahoogroup because they foolishly left the door open, isn’t.
I don’t disagree, I’m just saying that one of the reasons I post here is beause I wan’t Clint to pay attention and weigh in at some point. Don’t you think the rules are outdated?
Is hacking into someone’s yahoo site cheating? By the rules it is not. Legal or illegal isn’t an issue, what if I’m a player in Upper Tajikistan and there are no mail fraud laws, so my mail example is not illegal. Or In Malaysia where for all I know the hacking laws are very loose. You see what I mean. I care less about the specific game or instance in question, than the glaring need the game has here. Personally I recognize that people have different opinions and are welcome to them, as I am to mine, so I’m not going to bother trying to change them. I’d like some clarity from the company.
Now be careful John, you just called one of the posters on this thread a liar. Would it make any difference if the Harad player said he was role-playing? If he impersonated someone else? If he remained anonymous the whole time?
I’m not trying to goad anyone here, just playing devil’s advocate to a certain degree. I don’t see anything wrong with what that Harad player did (I was sorely pissed at the QA player though, believe me, especially since it was left to me to pick up the pieces); but for that Harad player to post up here and call other people cheaters, that seems a bit, um, “not right” to me.
