Neutral for GMs

mepbmlist
#1

In a message dated 7/18/01 6:27:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
devereux@lineone.net writes:

<< Subj: Re: [mepbmlist] Neutral for GMs

···

Date: 7/18/01 6:27:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: devereux@lineone.net (Richard John Devereux)
Reply-to: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Middle Earth PBM Games" <me@MiddleEarthGames.com>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 5:34 PM
Subject: [mepbmlist] Neutral for GMs

> Hello there - got a moral dilemma that I need to go past you. I WANT to
> play a dirty Neutral who from turn one attacks another dirty Neutral. :slight_smile:
>
> Basically players are allowed to do this but it can annoy the others in
the
> game. As a GM it might be considered inappropriate. Any thoughts?
>
> Clint (player)

RD: Ha ha ha! Since when have leaders of nations, neutral or otherwise,
had morals? You want to attack another neutral, go for it. I am interested
to see the outcome!

Richard.
  >>
Clint,
As a GM you have to maintain a strictly neutrality and avoid any shadow of
favoritism. As a player you are free to act as you please. However, a
problem arises because other players may not be able, or may not wish to,
keep your two roles completely separate.

This is a classic case of perceived conflict of interest.

Any nation that you attack, whether it be a neutral nation or an enemy nation
has a player behind it. That player may feel that he has been picked on by
an employee of the company, and therefore could conceivably decide to take
his business elsewhere because of this, so the mere fact of your playing
could have a negative impact on your company's profit-and-loss statement.
.
The only way to totally avoid perceptions of conflict of interest is to not
play in games in which you act as a GM, even if you keep totally hands off
the particular game in which you would be playing, because you have to avoid
not only real conflict of interest but perceived conflict of interest..

Ed

#2

I agree but then I and the rest of the GMs don't get to play ever as there
is always going to be a perceived conflict of interest. I would say that
that would have a detrimental impact on us running the game. (It gives us a
much clearer understanding of the game point of view on importance of buying
out the market, army moves and all other aspects which we could not get by
GMing alone).

As an aligned nation (in other games) I have attacked players before. No
malice intended just part of the game. (Yet to play a DS! and generally GMS
take up the last positions in the game). Part of the reason for asking was
to bring it up into the open so that it was very clear before the game
started, should I decide to go this way. (I might not - very open to
persuasion).

As a GM I concur on the strict neutrality point and then as a player
anything goes - the lines are fuzzy in some interpretations though. It's
basically a question of "Does the player trust us?" For some the answer is
clearly "No, we do not trust the GM to be impartial". For others it's quite
clearly "yes." When such thorny questions come up before (and they have
with alarming regularity whether or not we're playing in the game or not -
perceived conflict of interest in as much a game finishes more quickly, or a
nation dies (or is detrimented).) Our policy it to run the best game we can
and then that will stand on its feet and earn us money - not the other way
around. (Worked for another PBM where money first, game after and it did
not work nor do I think it would ever work other than in the manner of short
term gains).

I have overall had a favourable response to this situation. I would prefer
not to have said at all as it will clearly impact on the game but wanted to
test the waters first. I think that I will go with the majority desire here
and play - trying to please everyone all of the time isn't going to work I
think. Ed- I would be interested in your comments?

Clint

As a GM you have to maintain a strictly neutrality and avoid any shadow of
favoritism. As a player you are free to act as you please. However, a
problem arises because other players may not be able, or may not wish to,
keep your two roles completely separate.

This is a classic case of perceived conflict of interest.

Any nation that you attack, whether it be a neutral nation or an enemy

nation

has a player behind it. That player may feel that he has been picked on

by

an employee of the company, and therefore could conceivably decide to take
his business elsewhere because of this, so the mere fact of your playing
could have a negative impact on your company's profit-and-loss statement.
.
The only way to totally avoid perceptions of conflict of interest is to

not

play in games in which you act as a GM, even if you keep totally hands off
the particular game in which you would be playing, because you have to

avoid

···

not only real conflict of interest but perceived conflict of interest..

Ed