A very real hypothetical situation

General
#81

Drew,
so… what’s the difference? the difference is that in the case that started this thread, the information was stolen. In your hypothetical case, the information was given. The difference is between thieving and lying.
I personally think thieviing is cheating. I think lying isn’t as it’s been a part of the game all along. stealing has never been a part of the game as there was never a game mechanic for it.

As regards to liars and cheaters - hey, no need to publicly blacklist anyone. But, if people lie and/or cheat, it will become known in the player community. The old saying “fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me.” applies.

Finally, I actually applaud Dennis for starting this thread (though not for the invasion of the yahoo group). Clearly he did not think it was cheating. And it started a healthy discussion. I actually respect Brad J., Brad (VEO), Ed M., etc. They have opinions and are willing to stand behind them. I respect that. I think the best thing that can come out of this is for Clint to update the rules to encompass what’s right & wrong given modern technology.

My big point is that for the game to be healthy, we can’t have ambiguous rules areas. Rules need to have common understanding and interpretation for the game to thrive.

cheers
Dave

#82

In RL, the “law” and what is “right” do not always align. You can be someone who never breaks a law, yet be a morally reprehensible person. Conversely, you can break the law, perhaps you think it is an unjust law, for a higher moral standing, civil disobedience, and all that.

I don’t think it is right to hack into someone’s yahoo group; that’s not the same thing as saying it is cheating. I think we need to be more careful throwing out terms like that. On a more fundamental level, what’s the point of winning if you’ve won because your opponents left their yahoogroup open and you have all their plans? What’s the point of deceiving an opponent into sending you his PDF to gain an advantage? In both instances, I would rather beat someone heads-up, than because I had an out-of-game intel advantage. BUT, getting that out-of-game intel is specifically not prohibited by rule, therefore it is not cheating per se.

And to guard against ruining your game either way, you should have the common sense to not leave your yahoogroup open. <there’s the understatement of the day>

Drew

#83

Drew,

I guess Dave’s point is you voluntarily gave him your PDF. Now he knows you are a liar. You did not play a game for x amount of turns paying all the way not knowing someone hacked into, or walked in through an open door that you made the mistake of leaving open.

In either case, I would simply elect not to play with the players again. A liar or a cheat (my opinion that he is a cheat), is not someone I would want to play with.

If I had a teammate that would never respond to your email, do his own thing, build up a huge position while the rest of his teammates took on the other side etc etc. That person is someone I would not want to play with either.

I want to play in games against other players that want to play where the outcome is decided by who played the best on the playing field.

You could make a game, or you can say the game is meant to be won by any means whatsoever. If that is the way the game is meant to be played, then I think I am playing the wrong game. I don’t want to worry that my email is being hacked into by someone who is then stealing my turn results.

Just my two cents. I play for fun, some people I just don’t think would be fun to play.

tim

#84

Personally I think its a matter of morals, its a game and thus fair play should prevail even over winning… Winning by cheating is a hollow victory at best
and the rules should be updated and if a player is found to have accessed
a yahoo group of the opposition there must be a penalty.

Even if a Yahoo group is properly secured against unauthorised access it
really does’nt take much for someone with the skills to bypass the security,
ME need to look at this problem urgently, update the rules, imform players
of the possible security problem and issue penalties to those guilty.

Its a game and fair play is paramount and gamers need to be protected and
imformed.

#85

Tim, when you play a game whose rule book says “Be warned, however, that deceit (between players) is a common and perfectly acceptable tool in this game” [Seventh Edition Rules, bottom of page 1 to top of page 2] I just don’t see how much else can be ruled out as “cheating.” But when you say:

now you’re getting somewhere. Choose your teammates and play nothing but 12v12 grudge games (knowing your yahoogroup is secure <g>), that’s the way a lot of the old timers have gone in this game.

OK I’ll shut up now and crawl back into the peanut gallery…before I get the three teammates in two different games I’ve argued with on this thread today too riled up at me. <g>

Drew

#86

Well, yes, when someone pledges an allegiance in exchange for a turn, and then takes the turn, and pledges the other way … I would consider that lying. On that basis. I’m sure there is more to it, but if “I swear to do X if you give me Y” is said, Y is given, and the player not only doesn’t do X, but attacks me, I would consider having been lied to. Deceived, tricked, whatever you want to call it. I dont even know who the player is, if he’s pissed - sorry. Again, not really caring here about specific instances - just saying we need the rules updated!!!

#87

Drew,
you haven’t riled me on this topic at all.

But… if you want to get me riled, i believe you already know how… <grin>

Dave

#88

Well put Drew,

Is it cheating is it not cheating, I guess it doesn’t really matter.

I would be in favour of ME Games stating you are not allowed to acces the opposing teams website.

tim

#89

I agree that gaining unpermitted access to another group’s yahoo is reprehinsible. Should someone do it through “hacking”, then they have, infact, violated federal/civil law. This is not only cheating but an illegal act.

But if they got onto an unrestricted group, regardless of whether it is by design or accident, then they have broken no law, violated no one’s rights, done nothing illegal. Therefore, it is not cheating. Distasteful, perhaps, but not cheating.

And I understand that there is some great desire for fair-play. I fully support it. But I don’t need Clint & Crew to come on to here to realize that not only are they, as a company, not obligated to monitor/regulate something that the PLAYERS instituted, but are unable to do so through sheer lack of manpower.

As a company, I’m sure that they can and will decline to enroll anyone into a game with someone that they specifically stated they didn’t want to play with. Policing the players is not their responisbility, though. Policing the GAME is.

Just my two cents. Take it for what it’s worth.

Wade

#90

now you’re getting somewhere. Choose your teammates and play nothing but 12v12 grudge games (knowing your yahoogroup is secure <g>), that’s the way a lot of the old timers have gone in this game.

OK I’ll shut up now and crawl back into the peanut gallery…before I get the three teammates in two different games I’ve argued with on this thread today too riled up at me. <g>

Drew[/QUOTE]

That’s basically how i have gone, only play grudge currently and do NOT use any yahoo crap. Yahoo is regarded as sooooo insecure that the secure server at my work (we are our own ISP and use VSN technology) does not allow ANY yahoo emails through (and several other free-mail services get treated the same). My security administrator states that the ‘true’ security of all these sites is v.poor.

Am i an old timer??? probably…
I started back when it was based in Melbourne and the mail system (postman)gave more headaches to a turn than any techyno-logic stuff. All diplomacy via small white cards or the phone or ftf (if luck… i had a couple of team mates living only a few burbs away). Technology has overcome alot of this, but the convenience as always carries risks.

I generally get to play good opposition, trust my team mates and really feel the team side of the game. Don’t care about personal VP’s just team outcomes. And it works…go team Aussie.:smiley: (yet to lose, another victory about to happen)

Adrian

#91

I don’t think Clint can say anything. Yahoo groups in effect third party software and MEG’s has no jurisdiction over them.

I can’t really understand why anyone would pay money to partake in a contest then use outside game mechanics knowledge to have an advantage. Why play if you can’t win without help? Perhaps some need to win at all costs to boost their self-esteem. I really don’t care.

Like Tim said, I want to play in game where my MEPBM skill is pitted against another’s MEPBM skill. One can argue semantics in a never-ending fashion but IMO anyone that thinks it’s cool to overtly gather information outside of what the game mechanics provide is a piss-poor player in my book and a bit of coward in a MEPBM sense.

Steve

#92

Shut up and go hug a tree already.

JUST KIDDING !! <g>

#93

There’s a thought, legislate morality. I propose that players be prohibited from drinking alcohol for three hours before preparing their turn submissions. Fair Play is good. Can it be done in 10 pages or less?

#94

I’ll drink to that! <g>

#95

My mother-in-law just arrive for an extended stay, so I already broke the no-drinking rule.

The reason I am curious for Clint’s take, is that when there is a violationg of this sort, who do all the players turn to to sort it out? Rarely themselves. Ah bugger it, I’m going to go try to figure out something useful, like whether the MIL should sleep outside or under the porch

#96

JB,

Isn’t under the porch TECHNICALLY outside?

Just curious.

#97

Hmm, good point. No reason to show unnecessary kindness after all

#98

If you wish to cripple yourself through poor judgement, go ahead. Though one or two drinks…:wink: hic…

I like the idea of the ‘agreed’ terms reference. If it’s free for all, its free for all Otherwise it can be agreed upon, rather like the terms of surrender these days. I remember games pretty much gone by turn 25-30, turning into a bug-hunts up to turn 52. If this is cool then go for it, if not the stuff agreed upon becomes the standard for ‘that’ game.

I agree Clint etal can hardly become responsible for the third party actions.

Adrian

PS- i try to move out, go to a conference or do long work days in response to the imminent invasion of the MIL also known as ‘the other Gran’.
If the MIL ends up in your bed, it can end up with the Mrs on your side too. I’ve generally found that if ‘absence makes the heart grow fonder’ then proximity…

#99
  1. Gee, thanks, I don’t get many kudo’s… :wink:
  2. RE my previous note for a new thread. New thread coming up…
#100

I’ve posted on the rules list a tad. I’m quiet cos I want you guys to chat and see what you come up with. (Been working as welll!) :stuck_out_tongue:

Clearly different players have different ideas. Let’s say I’m not surprised… :wink:

There seem to me to be 3 basic different levels:

  1. Someone gives you their turnsheet - is it okay to use that information? (This could be a clever ruse via diplomacy for example).
  2. If someone accidentially leaves their turnsheet in your possession - FTF event or accidentally emails you their turn.
  3. If someone actively goes out to gain your turnsheet against your desire. (Ignorance of closing a Yahoo group, ignorance of email use etc).

Would players concur on that? If so (and I’ll assume for now that you do - there’ll be discussions on which actions come under which point, added points etc but that’s to a certain extent moot). Different players would find different “levels” appropriate. Which should I cater to? There are also different levels of players - players that want to win at all costs, some that want different levels of challenges, some that like making pretty patterns with their PCs etc. The game is very varied and the players very varied within that - varied x varied = LOTS of variety.

(One example was DS using the SS turn when a player was about to lose his last MT and no replacement was presently available to keep a nation alive. I’m pretty sure that Bill and Pete never intended it that way, having chatted to Stu about it he confirms this. Ie it was a bug in the program. When we closed that “loophole” there was a furore about that and we had some players drop but I think that it has benefited and also improved the game overall.)

We can certainly legislate (ie bring in a rule) that certain actions are not allowed. I doubt that many players, for example, would be happy if you a hacker broke into your computer, stole your turns and used that information. Or pretented to be us, sent out a “correction” and used you using the “correction” to gain a benefit.

Part of what I try to do here is create the best game we can with a level playing field and then let skill of the game decide the outcome (there are random factors but generally skill will out). That’s what I see as my job.

There are lots of different type of skills and each of the game formats promotes or demotes them. So diplomacy is a skill (in team and out of team) that is highly valued. Skill at the mechanisms of the game (what sphere that might be military, economic, character etc).

Then there’s skill that I see as outside the game more - and I would put aspects such as the attempt to gain information from a yahoogroup in that remit. Personally I understand the desire but it’s something that I personally dislike. (Our gaming group often play games where mis-representation is part of the game, Bridge for example is such a game but there’s levels of “pleasantness” involved).

Not sure if I told you the story of a game of Diplomacy by post that I heard about (pretty sure it’s correct). In the game a player sent out turns to all the other players in the game informing them that corrections due to an administrative error had occurred. To add further credence: he had copied the format etc and travelled to the town where the GM was running the game so that post mark was the same. Obviously most (it not all) of the players fell for it … Thoughts welcome…

Personally I think that set of guidelines and a set of rules might be useful here. Guidelines to help players (if they’ll actually read it - most still haven’t read the house rules for example) and rulings on what isn’t appropriate or is.

Clint