Am I cheat....?

mepbmlist
#1

Espionage and ruses of war are as old (or older)than the Old Testament. It is good practice to be alert to both. Most people lack the "intuitive sagacity" (per Sun Tzu) to identify espionage and ruses, which is why they work so often.

ME and the GM inadvertantly aid these types of operations. I am referencing the practice of filling mid and late game neutral positions. Want some concrete examples? In game 71 the midgame Harad quit and the DS hustled a friend into the position. As soon as practical the new Harad player went DS, quit and turned the position over to his friend. In game 88 the midgame Harad qit and the DS again put a "ringer" in the game. This individual 'sat-on-his-hands' and allowed the DS to conquer the country without resistance.

Are the above "cheating"? If not, clearly anything goes.

···

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

#2

ME and the GM inadvertantly aid these types of operations. I am

referencing

the practice of filling mid and late game neutral positions. Want some
concrete examples? In game 71 the midgame Harad quit and the DS hustled a
friend into the position. As soon as practical the new Harad player went
DS, quit and turned the position over to his friend. In game 88 the

midgame

Harad qit and the DS again put a "ringer" in the game. This individual
'sat-on-his-hands' and allowed the DS to conquer the country without
resistance.

Are the above "cheating"? If not, clearly anything goes.

In game 88 I was not a DS ringer and when I took over the Harad position it
would have been possible for the DS if they wanted to take over the nation
in 2 or 3 turns. Instead it took them longer because I was offering what
little resistance the nation had.

It had almost no troops at all and almost all characters were scattered
across Middle Earth. What they were doing I have no idea. We had no agents
of any note and only one emmisary. The tax rate was sitting around 90% (with
a 6 figure gold reserve ?) It was a complete mess.

If anything I actually helped the free by tying up Cloud Lord, Quiet Avenger
and Corsair resources which from the amount I saw could quite possibly just
wander over and massacre South Gondor.

Thomas

#3

ME and the GM inadvertantly aid these types of operations. I am referencing
the practice of filling mid and late game neutral positions. Want some
concrete examples? In game 71 the midgame Harad quit and the DS hustled a
friend into the position.

*** I thought the player who picked it up was already playing in the game as a DS. Am I incorrect in this? Not someone who was Neutral - the Harad was DS. I chatted to the players a lot in this situation to make sure that nothing untoward was happening.

   In game 88 the midgame

Harad qit and the DS again put a "ringer" in the game. This individual
'sat-on-his-hands' and allowed the DS to conquer the country without
resistance.

*** Not aware of this one - who was it and should I investigate it futher? Isn't this counter to the taking up a nation argument you put forward above. In this case aren't you arguing that effectively the nation was NOT taken over and that it should have been filled? We don't let players take up Neutrals in a game that you have allies in already - it breaks the essential Neutral aspect of the game.

Note anyone is able to send us some money, set-up an account and ruin a game by playing badly or against his team (or as a Neutral). It's something that we strongly discourage players from doing. Why bother cheating? What's the point?

*** The point about taking up nations is something that I have discussed numerous times. MEPBM's opinion is that without it games that are perfectly healthy otherwise fall apart. GSI/DGE and Allsorts were prime examples of this with nations left unfilled, but players willing to play them and the game dying on early turns leaving a bad feeling for everyone. This has to be offset against potential abuses which I am aware are in the game but have to trust that players don't use.

Clint

#4

In game 88 the
midgame
> Harad qit and the DS again put a "ringer" in the game. This individual
> 'sat-on-his-hands' and allowed the DS to conquer the country without
> resistance.
>
> Are the above "cheating"? If not, clearly anything goes.

In game 88 I was not a DS ringer and when I took over the Harad position it
would have been possible for the DS if they wanted to take over the nation
in 2 or 3 turns. Instead it took them longer because I was offering what
little resistance the nation had.

*** Thanks Thomas.

Clint

#5

As a player inolved in both 88 and 71 I feel I have to make a comment
or two here if only in self defence.

1 G71. I picked up Harad after it was dropped intending to make a
game of it. After a turn or so I decided to go DS having negotiated
in good faith with both teams. However the DS team in that game had a
lousy record on co-operation and a habit of - to my mind - childish
bickering. After a few more turns I decided I could not put up with
that sort of rubbish any longer and dropped. At that point the
nations was - as any aligned nation, offered first to the other team
members. I believe the WK took it up.

2 G88. I am Corsairs. The first Harad would not speak to anyone and
the QA and I took him apart. By the time he dropped all of Southern
Harad was lost either to myself or QA. After several turns the
position was picked up by someone unknown to myself or to the best of
my knowledge anyone else on the team. In my opinion it was pretty
much hopeless by then and I can see why that player also dropped
fairly quickly. I strongly resent any implication that it was a fix.

Staying on the subject of G88 I went into the game planning to be a
genuine neutral, then an overly clever Sinda played some fake email
tricks, which I will admit I fell for. I decided instantly to go DS
on principle as soon as his deception was revealed. Strangely he used
the email "Ovatha Easterling"..... care to comment?

David Everett
Corsair 88
Harad 71 (briefly)

--- In mepbmlist@y..., Middle Earth PBM Games <me@M...> wrote:

>ME and the GM inadvertantly aid these types of operations. I am

referencing

>the practice of filling mid and late game neutral positions. Want

some

>concrete examples? In game 71 the midgame Harad quit and the DS

hustled a

>friend into the position.

*** I thought the player who picked it up was already playing in

the game

as a DS. Am I incorrect in this? Not someone who was Neutral -

the Harad

was DS. I chatted to the players a lot in this situation to make

sure that

nothing untoward was happening.

   In game 88 the midgame
>Harad qit and the DS again put a "ringer" in the game. This

individual

>'sat-on-his-hands' and allowed the DS to conquer the country

without

>resistance.

*** Not aware of this one - who was it and should I investigate it
futher? Isn't this counter to the taking up a nation argument you

put

forward above. In this case aren't you arguing that effectively

the nation

was NOT taken over and that it should have been filled? We don't

let

players take up Neutrals in a game that you have allies in already -

it

breaks the essential Neutral aspect of the game.

Note anyone is able to send us some money, set-up an account and

ruin a

game by playing badly or against his team (or as a Neutral). It's
something that we strongly discourage players from doing. Why

bother

cheating? What's the point?

*** The point about taking up nations is something that I have

discussed

numerous times. MEPBM's opinion is that without it games that are
perfectly healthy otherwise fall apart. GSI/DGE and Allsorts were

prime

examples of this with nations left unfilled, but players willing to

play

them and the game dying on early turns leaving a bad feeling for
everyone. This has to be offset against potential abuses which I

am aware

···

are in the game but have to trust that players don't use.

Clint

#6

2 G88. I am Corsairs. The first Harad would not speak to anyone and
the QA and I took him apart. By the time he dropped all of Southern
Harad was lost either to myself or QA. After several turns the
position was picked up by someone unknown to myself or to the best of
my knowledge anyone else on the team. In my opinion it was pretty
much hopeless by then and I can see why that player also dropped
fairly quickly. I strongly resent any implication that it was a fix.

I believe I was the third Harad player and as a result was in even more of a
hopeless position. I held out a lot longer than to be honest I thought I
would. Possibly due to some over cautious play by the Corsairs and obviously
those Mumaks helped a little bit.

Thomas

#7

Having not looked at the list for a while I find a veritable can of
worms awaiting me including libellous slurs.

Not only is there the question of cheating but also the that of wild
and innacurate allegations presented without a shred of evidence. I
can't comment on 71 but in 88 I can say these allegations are
complete rubbish.

Harad was on the ropes when taken over by a dropout. The DS team held
back their attack whilst negotiating with Harad who intimated a
desire to join us. Due to problems communicating with the player we
thought this might be a ruse such as the one your Sinda player tried
on the Corsairs, so went back to attacking them after a turn or two.
I still have all the e-mails in which our team discusses this at
length and am happy, with our teams approval to forward them on to
Clint. I am sure Clint is both qualified and happy to look over the
relevant turns and judge whether there was wrongdoing.

Perhaps it might have been better to approach him first, as the games
GM, before broadcasting your serious and slanderous accusations in a
public medium about a team of your fellow players. I suggest you
immediately retract your damaging allegations and apologise.

I have played this game for almost 10 years and whilst I have been
accused of many things cheating is not generally one of them. I find
your utterly unfounded accusation grossly offensive. Has it occured
to you that your side is losing because we have played better than
you or maybe are you one of those players who only ever lose
games 'because they cheated'?

Chris Courtiour

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Ovatha Easterling" <ovatha88@h...> wrote:

Espionage and ruses of war are as old (or older)than the Old

Testament. It

is good practice to be alert to both. Most people lack

the "intuitive

sagacity" (per Sun Tzu) to identify espionage and ruses, which is

why they

work so often.

ME and the GM inadvertantly aid these types of operations. I am

referencing

the practice of filling mid and late game neutral positions. Want

some

concrete examples? In game 71 the midgame Harad quit and the DS

hustled a

friend into the position. As soon as practical the new Harad

player went

DS, quit and turned the position over to his friend. In game 88

the midgame

Harad qit and the DS again put a "ringer" in the game. This

individual

'sat-on-his-hands' and allowed the DS to conquer the country

without

···

resistance.

Are the above "cheating"? If not, clearly anything goes.

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

#8

I play the Cloud Lord in Game 88. Your accusation of the DS putting
a ringer in the Harad spot is completely unfounded. This never
circulated as a team discussion and I know nothing of this.

Besides, why not have a "ringer" declare DS? God knows I'd rather
spend my time busting up the freeps. Just ask South Gondor.

Woody - CL 88

--- In mepbmlist@y..., Middle Earth PBM Games <me@M...> wrote:

>ME and the GM inadvertantly aid these types of operations. I am

referencing

>the practice of filling mid and late game neutral positions. Want

some

>concrete examples? In game 71 the midgame Harad quit and the DS

hustled a

>friend into the position.

*** I thought the player who picked it up was already playing in

the game

as a DS. Am I incorrect in this? Not someone who was Neutral -

the Harad

was DS. I chatted to the players a lot in this situation to make

sure that

nothing untoward was happening.

   In game 88 the midgame
>Harad qit and the DS again put a "ringer" in the game. This

individual

>'sat-on-his-hands' and allowed the DS to conquer the country

without

>resistance.

*** Not aware of this one - who was it and should I investigate it
futher? Isn't this counter to the taking up a nation argument you

put

forward above. In this case aren't you arguing that effectively

the nation

was NOT taken over and that it should have been filled? We don't

let

players take up Neutrals in a game that you have allies in already -

it

breaks the essential Neutral aspect of the game.

Note anyone is able to send us some money, set-up an account and

ruin a

game by playing badly or against his team (or as a Neutral). It's
something that we strongly discourage players from doing. Why

bother

cheating? What's the point?

*** The point about taking up nations is something that I have

discussed

numerous times. MEPBM's opinion is that without it games that are
perfectly healthy otherwise fall apart. GSI/DGE and Allsorts were

prime

examples of this with nations left unfilled, but players willing to

play

them and the game dying on early turns leaving a bad feeling for
everyone. This has to be offset against potential abuses which I

am aware

···

are in the game but have to trust that players don't use.

Clint

#9

I am with Mark on this. I play the Dog Lord in 88 and we never knew
the replacement Harad player. He asked us to stop attacking him and
we offered him two turns of peace in which to switch to DS or we
would continue our rampage. He never replied so we destroyed him.

If he was a "ringer" placed by us, I think the Harad free army
ability would have been more useful than the Corsairs and QA spending
another 7 turns of effort putting him out.

Fletch

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "mwoodsmall" <mwoodsmall@y...> wrote:

I play the Cloud Lord in Game 88. Your accusation of the DS

putting

a ringer in the Harad spot is completely unfounded. This never
circulated as a team discussion and I know nothing of this.

Besides, why not have a "ringer" declare DS? God knows I'd rather
spend my time busting up the freeps. Just ask South Gondor.

Woody - CL 88

--- In mepbmlist@y..., Middle Earth PBM Games <me@M...> wrote:
>
> >ME and the GM inadvertantly aid these types of operations. I am
referencing
> >the practice of filling mid and late game neutral positions.

Want

some
> >concrete examples? In game 71 the midgame Harad quit and the DS
hustled a
> >friend into the position.
>
> *** I thought the player who picked it up was already playing in
the game
> as a DS. Am I incorrect in this? Not someone who was Neutral -
the Harad
> was DS. I chatted to the players a lot in this situation to make
sure that
> nothing untoward was happening.
>
> In game 88 the midgame
> >Harad qit and the DS again put a "ringer" in the game. This
individual
> >'sat-on-his-hands' and allowed the DS to conquer the country
without
> >resistance.
>
> *** Not aware of this one - who was it and should I investigate

it

> futher? Isn't this counter to the taking up a nation argument

you

put
> forward above. In this case aren't you arguing that effectively
the nation
> was NOT taken over and that it should have been filled? We don't
let
> players take up Neutrals in a game that you have allies in

already -

it
> breaks the essential Neutral aspect of the game.
>
> Note anyone is able to send us some money, set-up an account and
ruin a
> game by playing badly or against his team (or as a Neutral).

It's

> something that we strongly discourage players from doing. Why
bother
> cheating? What's the point?
>
>
> *** The point about taking up nations is something that I have
discussed
> numerous times. MEPBM's opinion is that without it games that

are

> perfectly healthy otherwise fall apart. GSI/DGE and Allsorts

were

prime
> examples of this with nations left unfilled, but players willing

to

···

play
> them and the game dying on early turns leaving a bad feeling for
> everyone. This has to be offset against potential abuses which I
am aware
> are in the game but have to trust that players don't use.
>
> Clint

#10

In 71 the Harad and Witch-king met up at the face to face (another
reason to come along?). This was after he had picked it up and after
the Harad had declared for the DS. At the ftf a plan was hatched to
get Harad recruiting HC in Angmar, they had the resouces but it was
such a long way away. Rhudaur were offered Mt Gram (2006) and would
in turn transfer Fennas Drunin (1910) to the Harad, the Witch-king
receiving Sukh Akhor (2535) as the final part of the plan. All of
this was agreed and characters started to move into place when the
new Harad player dropped after yet another verbal spat between the DS
made him feel he did not want to play in a game with such sour
relations. Seeing the chance of the plan going down the tubes the
Witch-king player jumped at the chance of picking up the Harad
position. I have no knowledge of why the first Harad player dropped
but do know that her father has a high reputation for honesty and
skill in middle earth.

Lewis

#11

In 71 the Harad and Witch-king met up at the face to face (another
reason to come along?). This was after he had picked it up and after
the Harad had declared for the DS. At the ftf a plan was hatched to
get Harad recruiting HC in Angmar, they had the resouces but it was
such a long way away. Rhudaur were offered Mt Gram (2006) and would
in turn transfer Fennas Drunin (1910) to the Harad, the Witch-king
receiving Sukh Akhor (2535) as the final part of the plan. All of
this was agreed and characters started to move into place when the
new Harad player dropped after yet another verbal spat between the DS
made him feel he did not want to play in a game with such sour
relations. Seeing the chance of the plan going down the tubes the
Witch-king player jumped at the chance of picking up the Harad
position. I have no knowledge of why the first Harad player dropped
but do know that her father has a high reputation for honesty and
skill in middle earth.

Lewis

#12

I am also in 71. I do not believe that anyone on the DS side knew David Everett prior to his taking over Harad. While I cannot dispute his comments about bickering, I would like to point out that it was two or three players in particular and he picked us at possibly our worst time. The rest of the team gets on very well together and several of us will be discussing the results & future tactics down the pub tomorrow so we are certainly communicating (usually more clearly at the beginning of the evening).

Richard

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: everett20uk
  To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 4:20 PM
  Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: Am I cheat....?

  As a player inolved in both 88 and 71 I feel I have to make a comment
  or two here if only in self defence.

  1 G71. I picked up Harad after it was dropped intending to make a
  game of it. After a turn or so I decided to go DS having negotiated
  in good faith with both teams. However the DS team in that game had a
  lousy record on co-operation and a habit of - to my mind - childish
  bickering. After a few more turns I decided I could not put up with
  that sort of rubbish any longer and dropped. At that point the
  nations was - as any aligned nation, offered first to the other team
  members. I believe the WK took it up.

  2 G88. I am Corsairs. The first Harad would not speak to anyone and
  the QA and I took him apart. By the time he dropped all of Southern
  Harad was lost either to myself or QA. After several turns the
  position was picked up by someone unknown to myself or to the best of
  my knowledge anyone else on the team. In my opinion it was pretty
  much hopeless by then and I can see why that player also dropped
  fairly quickly. I strongly resent any implication that it was a fix.

  Staying on the subject of G88 I went into the game planning to be a
  genuine neutral, then an overly clever Sinda played some fake email
  tricks, which I will admit I fell for. I decided instantly to go DS
  on principle as soon as his deception was revealed. Strangely he used
  the email "Ovatha Easterling"..... care to comment?

  David Everett
  Corsair 88
  Harad 71 (briefly)

  --- In mepbmlist@y..., Middle Earth PBM Games <me@M...> wrote:
  >
  > >ME and the GM inadvertantly aid these types of operations. I am
  referencing
  > >the practice of filling mid and late game neutral positions. Want
  some
  > >concrete examples? In game 71 the midgame Harad quit and the DS
  hustled a
  > >friend into the position.
  >
  > *** I thought the player who picked it up was already playing in
  the game
  > as a DS. Am I incorrect in this? Not someone who was Neutral -
  the Harad
  > was DS. I chatted to the players a lot in this situation to make
  sure that
  > nothing untoward was happening.
  >
  > In game 88 the midgame
  > >Harad qit and the DS again put a "ringer" in the game. This
  individual
  > >'sat-on-his-hands' and allowed the DS to conquer the country
  without
  > >resistance.
  >
  > *** Not aware of this one - who was it and should I investigate it
  > futher? Isn't this counter to the taking up a nation argument you
  put
  > forward above. In this case aren't you arguing that effectively
  the nation
  > was NOT taken over and that it should have been filled? We don't
  let
  > players take up Neutrals in a game that you have allies in already -
  it
  > breaks the essential Neutral aspect of the game.
  >
  > Note anyone is able to send us some money, set-up an account and
  ruin a
  > game by playing badly or against his team (or as a Neutral). It's
  > something that we strongly discourage players from doing. Why
  bother
  > cheating? What's the point?
  >
  >
  > *** The point about taking up nations is something that I have
  discussed
  > numerous times. MEPBM's opinion is that without it games that are
  > perfectly healthy otherwise fall apart. GSI/DGE and Allsorts were
  prime
  > examples of this with nations left unfilled, but players willing to
  play
  > them and the game dying on early turns leaving a bad feeling for
  > everyone. This has to be offset against potential abuses which I
  am aware
  > are in the game but have to trust that players don't use.
  >
  > Clint

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
  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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]