Am I cheat....?

mepbmlist
#1

Well Kev, that was an interesting spin on things!:slight_smile:

Anyone can cheat. I would say a possible senario came up in G65 between the Cors and QA (in which I was the QA). Kev knows about this well (but he was not the Cors).

I'm not going to debate the merits of cheating or not. What I would say is what sought of a person do you want to be? I would imagine most people want to play more than one game. If you sully your name in one game, word gets around. Will you be trusted in the next? What happens, should you "cheat" one person and a few games down the track you find yourself playing with the same person, will you or your teammates be able to reply on needy supplies arriving on time. Would send them to a player that in a previuos game "stabbed you in the back"? How tempting would it be to sell them down down the river with a "mis-typed" order, denying him of gold just when he needed it most!

Deceit or cheating (they are really both the same arent they) can be part of the game but is that the sought of person you want to be known as? After all its only a game and if your playing in the long term is it really worth it?

Finally there is saying "You reap what you sow". If you are prepared to embark upon the path of deceit, sure you might win a game but I dont think you'll make too many more friends!

Phil

PS I ended up creaming the Cors and the DS won! I placed third.

Hello all,

Is this cheating, or is it good play? I'm asking because what one person
might consider as fair game, the other might think is downright cheating.
I know where I stand on these issues - but I'm interested to see what
others think.

Scenario 1

Early on in a game, you get a good relationship with at least one neutral.
You ask him/her to tell you who is on the opposition team (so that you can
exchange insults) and who is talking to him/her and the rest of the neutrals.
He sends you the oppo list.

It's suprising how many people use hotmail accounts. You see the oppos
email addresses. One of them is something like jorisboets@hotmail.com (for
example). You take out a hotmail account called jorisbeots@hotmail.com You
then send emails to the undeclared neutrals and act like a complete tosser
(not too difficult for me) in the guise of the opposition player. People
tend not to check the address that carefully. The neutrals get pissed off
with Jos. They reply to the emails (so 'Jos'=you get the response). 'Jos'
then winds them up even more! They decide to join your team instead.

Is this cheating?

(Sorry Jos, I'm just using your name as an example because it struck me as
a good one - I've never sent anything to a neutral in your name using the
method above. It did cross my mind though)!

Scenario 2

In the dim and distant past, before email was as prevalant as it is now,
initial communication was via the medium of telephone calls, postal
messages and those in game cards thingys. It actually says on page one of
the rule book that, "deceit (between players) is a common and perfectly
acceptable tool in this game. Just because you've received a card from the
dwarves doesn't mean the dwarves actually sent it".

Replace 'card' with 'email'. Still OK? There are a number of handy tools
on the internet which allow you to send fake emails. If you know where to
look you can download a small file which will do the job. I could in
theory (and so could you) send an email to a neutral and insult them and it
would appear that it had come from one of my opponents. The email address
and name would be identical. If I was a freep, I could send an email to
the DS team and pretend to be (for example) the CL and say I hated my
teammates and was dropping. You would have to look at the header details
to make sure who it was.

Is this cheating?

Ideas like this run through my mind all the time! Deceit is encouraged,
but is this taking it too far? Doing this is of course, a dangerous game!
If you get caught out - who'll believe anything you say!

I do have another 'cheat' for which I've just blown my cover with Clint and
been told off for! I'll leave that one for another email in a couple of
weeks. :slight_smile:

Kev

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

From the great Darryl Summers and Ozzie Ostrich
"If at first you don't suceed - give up"

路路路

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

#2

Play the game within the parameters of the program. Have some fun
on the boards, etc, with yapping and other crap, but email scams
are deceitful, and frankly, pathetic.

Brad

路路路

--- Philip VINCENT <philipvincent@hotmail.com> wrote:

Well Kev, that was an interesting spin on things!:slight_smile:

Anyone can cheat. I would say a possible senario came up in G65
between the
Cors and QA (in which I was the QA). Kev knows about this well (but
he was
not the Cors).

I'm not going to debate the merits of cheating or not. What I would
say is
what sought of a person do you want to be? I would imagine most
people want
to play more than one game. If you sully your name in one game, word
gets
around. Will you be trusted in the next? What happens, should you
"cheat"
one person and a few games down the track you find yourself playing
with the
same person, will you or your teammates be able to reply on needy
supplies
arriving on time. Would send them to a player that in a previuos game

"stabbed you in the back"? How tempting would it be to sell them down
down
the river with a "mis-typed" order, denying him of gold just when he
needed
it most!

Deceit or cheating (they are really both the same arent they) can be
part of
the game but is that the sought of person you want to be known as?
After all
its only a game and if your playing in the long term is it really
worth it?

Finally there is saying "You reap what you sow". If you are prepared
to
embark upon the path of deceit, sure you might win a game but I dont
think
you'll make too many more friends!

Phil

PS I ended up creaming the Cors and the DS won! I placed third.

>
>Hello all,
>
>Is this cheating, or is it good play? I'm asking because what one
person
>might consider as fair game, the other might think is downright
cheating.
>I know where I stand on these issues - but I'm interested to see
what
>others think.
>
>Scenario 1
>
>Early on in a game, you get a good relationship with at least one
neutral.
>You ask him/her to tell you who is on the opposition team (so that
you can
>exchange insults) and who is talking to him/her and the rest of the
>neutrals.
>He sends you the oppo list.
>
>It's suprising how many people use hotmail accounts. You see the
oppos
>email addresses. One of them is something like
jorisboets@hotmail.com (for
>example). You take out a hotmail account called
jorisbeots@hotmail.com You
>then send emails to the undeclared neutrals and act like a complete
tosser
>(not too difficult for me) in the guise of the opposition player.
People
>tend not to check the address that carefully. The neutrals get
pissed off
>with Jos. They reply to the emails (so 'Jos'=you get the response).
'Jos'
>then winds them up even more! They decide to join your team
instead.
>
>Is this cheating?
>
>(Sorry Jos, I'm just using your name as an example because it struck
me as
>a good one - I've never sent anything to a neutral in your name
using the
>method above. It did cross my mind though)!
>
>Scenario 2
>
>In the dim and distant past, before email was as prevalant as it is
now,
>initial communication was via the medium of telephone calls, postal
>messages and those in game cards thingys. It actually says on page
one of
>the rule book that, "deceit (between players) is a common and
perfectly
>acceptable tool in this game. Just because you've received a card
from the
>dwarves doesn't mean the dwarves actually sent it".
>
>Replace 'card' with 'email'. Still OK? There are a number of handy
tools
>on the internet which allow you to send fake emails. If you know
where to
>look you can download a small file which will do the job. I could
in
>theory (and so could you) send an email to a neutral and insult them
and it
>would appear that it had come from one of my opponents. The email
address
>and name would be identical. If I was a freep, I could send an
email to
>the DS team and pretend to be (for example) the CL and say I hated
my
>teammates and was dropping. You would have to look at the header
details
>to make sure who it was.
>
>Is this cheating?
>
>Ideas like this run through my mind all the time! Deceit is
encouraged,
>but is this taking it too far? Doing this is of course, a dangerous
game!
>If you get caught out - who'll believe anything you say!
>
>I do have another 'cheat' for which I've just blown my cover with
Clint and
>been told off for! I'll leave that one for another email in a
couple of
>weeks. :slight_smile:
>
>Kev
>
>
>
>Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
>To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
>Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

From the great Darryl Summers and Ozzie Ostrich
"If at first you don't suceed - give up"

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

______________________________________________________________________
Post your ad for free now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

#3

Deceit or cheating (they are really both the same arent they)

No, they are not both the same. This is a fundamental misconception made by some players of more complex games. It's best resolved by looking a simpler games, like poker, where "bluffing" is an accepted part of the game (and therefore of the accepted rules) and childrens' games such as "Cheat", which is of course not about cheating at all, but a bluffing game.

So cheating is deceit which breaches the agreed (or standardised by an authority) rules. Bluffing is deceit which is allowed within the parameters of the rules.

Things become difficult when rules are not clear, or when a game has changed, and rules have not been updated. A good example is Cricket - what sneaky tactics were permitted years ago, are now ruled out because of over use. Other rule changes, especially in one day rules have been brought in to accommodate (in reasonable ways) tactical play. The ICC seem to change the rules every year, constantly defining what is (polishing one side of the ball, using spit) and isn't legal (picking the seam, using hair cream).

Kev was right to draw our attention to:

It actually says on page one of
>the rule book that, "deceit (between players) is a common and perfectly
>acceptable tool in this game. Just because you've received a card from the
>dwarves doesn't mean the dwarves actually sent it".

Because it's a classic example of a rule which needs updating. It refers to the days of postcard diplos, and all sorts of issues are raised by the fact that we almost all use e-mail now.

GSI are not interested. MEPBM games need to review the house rules more regularly.

In one recent game, a neutral persuaded a team that he was going to declare for them, had lots of information, gold and pdfs from them, then declared the other way. The team concerned got very upset about it, because they had been lied to. But as far as I'm concerned the actions were BLUFF. The lies were told by the neutral nation, not by a person in real life. If we don't understand this , then the whole point of having neutrals - the main diplomacy aspect of the game, is destroyed. Bluff is a part of diplomacy - many would say it's the most enjoyable part.

In another game I am a neutral, but am heavily involved with one allegiance. I need their help, but declaration is not always easy or convenient. So I have to work had to persuade them to trust me. Not easy. Bluff and diplomacy does not simply benefit neutrals, it can leave them feeling isolated too.

BUT getting someone else's pdf by tricking MEPBM Games is clearly cheating - it's looking at the opponent's cards. It is a deceit beyond rather than within the rules.

It's the "grey areas" that cause problems here. Forging an e-mail address would seem to me to be cheating, because it is beyond the technical ability of all, and is capable of eliciting a substantial reply, perhaps with pdf attached. The old diplo card "from the dwarves" does not do this in quite the same way because:
- It uses an alias if it wants a reply
- It has passed though the hands of the GM
The first, gives us some warning. The second allows refereeing of what is Bluff and what is Cheat. "I am the dwarves, my name and address is________ please send your pdf", if the address were that of the ClL, could reasonably be stopped by the GM, judging that it had gone beyond the spirit of the game.

If, on the other hand, I am clever enough to forge e-mail addresses, or write a virus which reads all the pdfs on you hard disk and sends them to me, there is no adjudication.

MEPBM games need to look again at the question of anonymity - the automatic distribution of e-mail addresses has reduced the bluff element of the game. If as a neutral, you want to do a bit of bluffing, you now have to positively opt out, and make a request to stay anonymous. That makes your sneaky intentions immediately apparent to everyone - thus making it rather pointless. The Dumboat variation seems to have come about partly for this reason - but it's a gross hammer to crack a small nut - throwing out diplomacy entirely instead of seeking moderate ways to rebalance it in the light of e-mail technology.

Laurence G. Tilley

http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk

路路路

At 01:52 23/07/2002, Philip Vincent wrote:

#4

> It actually says on page one of
> >the rule book that, "deceit (between players) is a common and perfectly
> >acceptable tool in this game. Just because you've received a card from the
> >dwarves doesn't mean the dwarves actually sent it".

Because it's a classic example of a rule which needs updating. It refers
to the days of postcard diplos, and all sorts of issues are raised by the
fact that we almost all use e-mail now.

GSI are not interested. MEPBM games need to review the house rules more
regularly.

*** I totally agree that this rule needs to be changed - but we have had a lot of player rebuke when we asked about it in the past. I personally would much prefer it be changed. We're bringing out a new rule book at some time in the future. At present this is allowed, although I personally frown upon it I leave it up the conscience of the player concerned. It's great fun to do, but causes more annoyance to have it done to you and causes us no end of hassle and destroys games and is the 2nd biggest cause of players leaving the game forever.

MEPBM games need to look again at the question of anonymity - the automatic
distribution of e-mail addresses has reduced the bluff element of the
game.

*** It's not automatic. Check the house rules. It's the default. If you don't want them sent them you need to contact us at game start to inform us that's what you want - otherwise like most players - we'll assume that you want them sent on.

聽聽If as a neutral, you want to do a bit of bluffing, you now have to
positively opt out, and make a request to stay anonymous.

*** Not the case. As a Neutral no-one gets your email address or contact details unless you give them out. When you change allegiance you will have your contact details sent onwards unless at game start you have requested otherwise.

That makes your
sneaky intentions immediately apparent to everyone - thus making it rather
pointless. The Dumboat variation seems to have come about partly for this
reason - but it's a gross hammer to crack a small nut - throwing out
diplomacy entirely instead of seeking moderate ways to rebalance it in the
light of e-mail technology.

*** I personally am enjoying Gunboat, but glad to have your opinion on this version of the game. If you don't like it don't play it. I would consider running a limited diplomacy game but for now I doubt there is a player base for it at present.

Clint

#5

Indeed. I find it a very unattractive cherry and shalln't be touching it with a barge pole. Though I suppose I shall then be criticised for venturing to comment on something I haven't tried. But nonetheless...

I feel it raises interesting issues for the game and community as a whole. For me it's the diplomacy and communication and team work, which make Mepbm an excellent game. Usually, bad communicators are bad players, and teams of people who put high effort into communication usually win over those that don't. Changing the rules in favour of those who don't like making an effort seems to me like saying "I like football, but I don't like practicing skills or keeping fit so let's set up a special league, where only the indolent are allowed to play."

I admit to equivocal feelings on the variation: The devil on my left shoulder tells me that it acts as a useful sort of ghetto, which will draw off the lazy and uncommunicative types, to the end benefit of those of us in normal games, endlessly frustrated by the chap who doesn't send an e-mail more than once a month. But the angel on my right has real problems with the Gunboat idea, suggesting that it is actually a development which encourages bad play, and is going to have a detrimental effect, especially on newcomers to Mepbm.

Laurence G. Tilley

http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk

路路路

At 13:19 23/07/2002, you wrote:

The Dumboat variation seems to have come about partly for this
>reason - but it's a gross hammer to crack a small nut - throwing out
>diplomacy entirely instead of seeking moderate ways to rebalance it in the
>light of e-mail technology.

*** I personally am enjoying Gunboat, but glad to have your opinion on this
version of the game. If you don't like it don't play it.

#6

I feel it raises interesting issues for the game and community as a
whole. For me it's the diplomacy and communication and team work, which
make Mepbm an excellent game.

*** Other's definitely enjoy other aspects of the game. Bludgeoning team-mates into my way of thinking is not fun for me... :slight_smile: Maybe I need to change my diplomatic technique. Not sure if I would call myself uncommunicative in team games though... :slight_smile: The strong desire for players to players Neutrals (invariably fill before) indicates, to me, that sitting tight, building up and enjoying that aspect is great for them. Just had a game end due to lack of communication so it's getting the right level (and other players drop due to too MUCH diplomacy).

I admit to equivocal feelings on the variation: The devil on my left
shoulder tells me that it acts as a useful sort of ghetto, which will draw
off the lazy and uncommunicative types, to the end benefit of those of us
in normal games, endlessly frustrated by the chap who doesn't send an
e-mail more than once a month. But the angel on my right has real problems
with the Gunboat idea, suggesting that it is actually a development which
encourages bad play, and is going to have a detrimental effect, especially
on newcomers to Mepbm.

*** I would strongly discourage new players from joining a Gunboat game. At the end of the day it's the player's money and they can spend it how they want but I try to encourage them into 1650 2wk, and 2950 2wk as well. I occasionally get friends bring allies into the other formats but I find that is unsuccessful compared to the merits of normal 2wk games.

Clint

#7

Laurence G. Tilley wrote:

I feel it raises interesting issues for the game and community as a whole. For me it's the diplomacy and communication and team work, which make Mepbm an excellent game. Usually, bad communicators are bad players,

I think you're making a little much of this, Laurence. I play neutrals more often than I play aligned nations, and I try to be a heavy communicator. I'm also playing 2950 Gunboat, just to try something different. I curious to see if it's possible for a side to coordinate on "instinct."

聽聽聽聽聽聽jason

路路路

--
Jason Bennett, jasonab@acm.org
E pur si muove!

#8

Note I am happy with what went on in game 71. I feel there was no subterfuge attempted or carried out.

Clint

#9

I feel it raises interesting issues for the game and community as a
whole. For me it's the diplomacy and communication and team work, which
make Mepbm an excellent game. Usually, bad communicators are bad players,
and teams of people who put high effort into communication usually win over
those that don't. Changing the rules in favour of those who don't like
making an effort seems to me like saying "I like football, but I don't like
practicing skills or keeping fit so let's set up a special league, where
only the indolent are allowed to play."

Hi,

I love teamwork in MEPBM. I'm captain of the GM team which is a few turns into a great grudge game against Ulrik's Allstars. We probably spend about 9-10 hours each turn on discussion. This is brilliant fun.

However, I'd knacker my social life if I played in more than one game like this, yet I want to play in more games of ME than just the one. Gunboat is perfect for this.

If I'm busy, I just whizz off a turn in an hour. If I have the time, I sit and ponder. :slight_smile:

Sam

#10

-On Cheat or Bluff:
As Kevin and Laurence (and someone even quoted Sun Tzu) pointed out,
deceit and bluffing are part of war, and therefore stimulated to a
certain level (that is, excluding actual cheating) in the game. So, if
we intend to role-play it as the leaders of warring nations, conceivably
we would jump at any oportunity of ruse, deceit or malevolent
backstabing scheme to get a higher ground over our enemies.

If one sticks to this radical "realism", than any notion of fair play
becomes pointless and out of place. Al least in theory, this aproach
would be valid, but most of us are not willing to go that far, since we
are only players at "make believe", not actual warring blood enemies (at
least I hope not!).

And though "all's fair in love and war", one can become "branded" by
this kind of playing, as Richard pointed. I have heard players accusing
other players of lack of character and other endearing personality
offenses for such deceits, and most players involved (even the less
offensive ones) agreed that they would avoid the "deceitful" player in
the future. Let me bring another worm to the can, with this actual
example:

In a game where I was WK, Duns settled its alliance with the DS on turn
1, but he convinced the FP he would ally with them, going as far as
joining their mailing list and exchanging pdfs, and even received part
of his conditions for joining (Cardolani gold, which this always
bankrupt WK was more than happy to receive afterwards :)). Around turn 5
he attacked them, and got huge shouts of outrage from them.

Personally, I was ok with that, even encouraged it, based mainly on 2
arguments: 1- Betrayals and turncoating are commonplace in most
historical or fantasy wars; 2- Knightly words of honor aside, one
shouldn't take an opponent on his word alone, they were foolish for
doing it. Those naive humans... :stuck_out_tongue:

Later I learned that, back when the Duns player was still in the FP
mailing list and exchanged pdfs, he had been sending adulterated pdfs
with the technical help of another DS player. That I disaproved, it
crossed that grey line, though I cannot present any objective argument
as to why this was wrong and the first part wasn't. I simply felt it was
"too much".

What are your thoughts on a situation like that? (please note that this
wasn't under ME, I play through Anel Um, GSI's brazilian "hub").

-On Diplomacy and Gunboat:
This I believe is a far simpler matter, not involving any "moral"
issues, simply being a matter of each player's personnal taste. Variety,
after all, IS the spice of life (I'm Mr. Platitude today). I think the
channels of communication should be available, then it is up to each
player (or team of players) to decide the level of diplomacy they want.

If people who want high and low levels of communication getting stranded
on the same game becomes an issue, ME might stablish varying levels of
diplomacy (besides normal and Gunboat) and announce it accordingly when
opening a new game.

Personally, the idea of Gunboat quite appeases me as a nice change of
air. Here in Brazil the game's been around for few years, so the player
base is still small and mostly in the same two cities. So, pretty much
everyone knows everyone (with perhaps one degree of separation), which
causes high levels of communication to be the established rule, you
don't have the option of playing it solo. If you guys complai about
being unable to play the "withdrawn neutral type", you should see how it
is here. :stuck_out_tongue:

Manh锟絜s
(Sorry for the long email)

路路路

--
"Mortis In Anima
Curam Gero Cutis"
Carl Orff - "Carmina Burana"

#11

If people who want high and low levels of communication getting stranded
on the same game becomes an issue, ME might stablish varying levels of
diplomacy (besides normal and Gunboat) and announce it accordingly when
opening a new game.

*** Running too many variants dilutes the player base. Ie we might 6 players who want to play variant 2bi and 7 who want to only play variant 2cii - nightmare. So I try to limit what we offer - just so that games get going not from a lack of desire.

Clint