Am I cheat....?

88_Noldo · July 23, 2002, 4:38pm

Hello David:
Yes, Ovatha Easterling was a ruse. When I shut it down (it was not compromised) I related the facts to the interested parties and gave my mundane name. One individual was amused at the 'snookering'. One person actually thanked me for the lesson. You were resentful and it has motivated you to excellence in my destruction--I view that as a positive result.

···

From: "everett20uk" <David@everett20.freeserve.co.uk>
Reply-To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: Am I cheat....?
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 15:20:28 -0000

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

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

everett20uk1 · July 23, 2002, 5:01pm

Just a couple of points.

1 "Resentful" is not quite the right word. As appears to be the
general view of players, judging by the comments on this list, I
dislike the practice of "email" trickery. In my opinion the sooner ME
find a way to ban it the better. In the eantime I expect you will
find others who will take such deception as a hostile act and decide
to ally against you.

2 In your example you effectively made an accusation that I and
teammates have cheated in g71 and g88. As you have presented no
evidence for either case and both Clint and another neutral involved
have shown your comments incorrect would you please either withdraw
them or produce some evidence in support

David Everett

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

Hello David:
Yes, Ovatha Easterling was a ruse. When I shut it down (it was not
compromised) I related the facts to the interested parties and

gave my

mundane name. One individual was amused at the 'snookering'. One

person

actually thanked me for the lesson. You were resentful and it has

motivated

you to excellence in my destruction--I view that as a positive

result.

>From: "everett20uk" <David@e...>
>Reply-To: mepbmlist@y...
>To: mepbmlist@y...
>Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: Am I cheat....?
>Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 15:20:28 -0000
>
>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
>

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device:

http://mobile.msn.com

Jim · July 24, 2002, 3:41am

To All,

Sorry to debunk your allegation, but there was no Harad "ringer" in
game 88. I am afraid Harad's downfall was due to poor play by the
initial owner, a rather hamfisted diplomacy ploy by the Sinda...which
compelled the Corsairs to join the Dark Side, followed by some
dashingly good play by the Corsair/QA juggernaut with just enough
Cloud Lord intervention to seal Harad's fate. Oh, there were all
those ODD moves by Amroth's Sinda fleet.

The folks who took the position over did well with what they had, but
the end was inevitable.

Seems to be another attempt at stirring up controversy by that nasty,
fake emailing, wrong way Amroth elf. After I take the SG capital
this turn, I'll march up to Lorien and set things straight.

Jim
QA 88