Malicious

mepbmlist
#1

Malicious, as a standard, sounds good. It is a high legal standard that will require a (time consuming) investigation by Harley.

No one ever doubted GSI's or Deft's inpartiality. The staff seldom played the game and clearly identified themself when they did. Since Harley's staff (it seems) often plays the game, we have a situation where the investigator MAY say "I have played with John Doe for six years and know him to be a straight arrow This chap John Crowe, from New Zealand, is just a name to me."

What IS malicious is calling a team mate stupid and worst. That person will get a pass since he is "not trying to wreck the game and is not assassinating fellow gamers' characters." In the previous example I provided, the Europeans were clearly trying to run off the North Americans and replace them with more compatable individuals. Is that malicious? I think so, but they are not the ones who will be retiring all characters.

The more I think about it, the more I understand why GSI/Deft ducked the issue.

···

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

#2

If anything, DGE/GSI had a much higher set of standards for "cheating"
than Harly...I actually think that the looser Harly standards on
setups and replacements are very logical but create the need for GM
intervention. e.g. someone can sign up for (say) Harad in specific
rather than submitting a list of nations...and this allows them to
join in cahoots with someone who picks the Corsairs and throw a game.
I view this as simple cheating - and in exchange for spending $150 on
a game I expect the GM to deal with cheating.

The best way of dealing with infighting is to rely on the integrity of
the opposing team. If a freep sent me info on the dark servant side -
I want to win fair and square, and would not even look at the pdfs,
etc.
Whats the point? I'd tell them to drop and give the other free a shot
at running the game. If you ever end up in the same game as the
losers who have annoyed you - refuse to be on their team. If
they are jerks - drop out. If one group is being a real
collection of jerks - set up a grudge match against them and
stomp them. There are a *small* number of players whom I simply
refuse to be on the same team with - this is based on dishonesty
rather than competence.

I think it is appropriate for the GM to check in, and remind people
about sportsmanship. If they detect actual cheating (sending
information to the other team, neutrals who joined with the express
intent of throwing the game), this is grounds for ejection. I'd also
have clearly stated conditions under which players will be ejected -
and I, at least, respect the decisions of the GM as absolutely final
with no problem.

cheers,

Marc

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

Malicious, as a standard, sounds good. It is a high legal standard

that

will require a (time consuming) investigation by Harley.

No one ever doubted GSI's or Deft's inpartiality. The staff seldom

played

the game and clearly identified themself when they did. Since

Harley's

staff (it seems) often plays the game, we have a situation where

the

investigator MAY say "I have played with John Doe for six years and

know him

to be a straight arrow This chap John Crowe, from New Zealand, is

just a

name to me."

What IS malicious is calling a team mate stupid and worst. That

person will

get a pass since he is "not trying to wreck the game and is not
assassinating fellow gamers' characters." In the previous example I
provided, the Europeans were clearly trying to run off the North

Americans

and replace them with more compatable individuals. Is that

malicious? I

think so, but they are not the ones who will be retiring all

characters.

The more I think about it, the more I understand why GSI/Deft ducked

the

issue.

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

#3

But you're imposing your own definition of what constitutes "actual cheating" without reference to the rules or house rules. I'd agree on "joining with the express intention of throwing the game" because that contravenes the game objectives as defined in the rules. But I'd not agree on "sending information to the other team". There's noting in the rules which forbids that. There's nothing in the rules that says you have to give information to your own team, and it is interesting how willing some are to share their pdfs complete with security code. If a player felt (or wanted to claim that) he was taking a hammering from the enemy, and that the best way to shift some of the pressure in order to accomplish his personal victory objectives, was to send the turn reports of his incautious allies to the enemy, then he is perfectly within the rules, as they stand at present.

I've written much on how I'd like to see the VPs, VCs and nation placings scrapped entirely, but while they're there, the GMs have to allow anything within the rules, however disloyal or despicable, by which a player might be able to claim that he is advancing his personal goals.

Laurence G. Tilley

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

···

At 10:03 PM 22-10-01, pinsonneault.1@osu.edu wrote:

I think it is appropriate for the GM to check in, and remind people
about sportsmanship. If they detect actual cheating (sending
information to the other team, neutrals who joined with the express
intent of throwing the game), this is grounds for ejection

#4

If anything, DGE/GSI had a much higher set of standards for "cheating"
than Harly...I actually think that the looser Harly standards on
setups and replacements are very logical but create the need for GM
intervention. e.g. someone can sign up for (say) Harad in specific
rather than submitting a list of nations...and this allows them to
join in cahoots with someone who picks the Corsairs and throw a game.
I view this as simple cheating - and in exchange for spending $150 on
a game I expect the GM to deal with cheating.

We keep an eye on this and although the occasional player does get through
this is mostly stopped. Ie we take an active part in this. Players getting
to play the nation they want to improves player happiness I find.

>I'd also
have clearly stated conditions under which players will be ejected -
and I, at least, respect the decisions of the GM as absolutely final
with no problem.

Interesting.

Clint

#5

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

> If anything, DGE/GSI had a much higher set of standards for

"cheating"

> than Harly...I actually think that the looser Harly standards on
> setups and replacements are very logical but create the need for

GM

> intervention. e.g. someone can sign up for (say) Harad in

specific

> rather than submitting a list of nations...and this allows them to
> join in cahoots with someone who picks the Corsairs and throw a

game.

> I view this as simple cheating - and in exchange for spending $150

on

> a game I expect the GM to deal with cheating.

We keep an eye on this and although the occasional player does get

through

this is mostly stopped. Ie we take an active part in this. Players

getting

···

to play the nation they want to improves player happiness I find.

> >I'd also
> have clearly stated conditions under which players will be ejected

-

> and I, at least, respect the decisions of the GM as absolutely

final

> with no problem.

Interesting.

Clint

Nice one Clint :slight_smile: I happen to think that you've made the right call
whenever I've had a beef. That's not to say that I haven't ever had
one...

My text there was garbled; what I intended to say is that the GM sets
the rules, and that as long as they are known in advance (whatever
they are) it minimizes problems. You decide, let us know. You folks
do a fine job.

Marc