I never said, Clint, that you could not be objective as a moderator. What
I
said was that whenever you play in one of your company's games, you take
some
risk, however slight, that some player (another dirty neutral?) may
sometime,
somehow, perceive you as picking on him.
I agree that a player might well perceive that I was "hitting him" for
personal reasons. Part of the reason I brought it up was so that it was
open. Let's put it this way that to be able to be a GM you need to have a
thick skin. 
In order to avoid that risk, I
would simply suggest that some games be open for moderators to play in,
and
some closed, and that when you announce that you are accepting setups for
a
new game, that you state whether or not that game is open to moderators.
*** Mostly we don't play and most players don't have a problem so we inform
players when we do join so that they are aware. (Note some GMs have
forgotten to do this in the past but I have warned them). It's a rare event
(does happen) and in that situation we either wait until the next game, or
sometimes the player waits. (Mostly the former by a factor of 8-1 at
present).
Anyone who plays in a game open to moderators then accepts that situation
up
front, instead of finding out after x turns, that one of the opponents
happens to be a moderator.
I warn them with the first turn and BEFORE hand on the FS (good idea that)
as well as elsewhere. The other GMs are asked to as well. One of the GMs
recently asked to play under a pseudonym and I disallowed it.
In a game open to moderators, even given that they take no part in
actually
running that game, questions may arise such as:
1. Do the moderators play for free? If not, are they not simply paying
themselves in a roundabout way, which in principle is the same as playing
for
free?
Free play for us - it's about the only perk (other than immediate turnaround
sometimes and ready access to player information and hence faster learning
curve - well for some!)
2. Will playing moderators engage in outrageous or risky strategies,
knowing
that if their nation suffers disaster they can simply start another game
at
no cost to themselves (possibly at some discomfort to their former
allies),
since to them, it is not only a game, but a business?
No idea - that would be up for the player or GM - for some �3.90 for 8 hours
entertainment is not a lot. Normally the GMs are asked not to think
about the game from a GM point of view. They are just players. We have
been asked that when a position drops below a viable state that we drop/pass
it on. I think that is fair. NOTE what some players will play is dependent
on the team vs individual aspect. I have seen some very damaged positions
played on due to the desire to win at all costs.
3. [I have to assume, for the sake of argument, that moderators, as
licensees, have access to the software, even if the licensing agreement
prohibits making changes in the program code. So far as I am aware, all
of
the variant games involve changes in initial startup variables only, not
in
any of the three actual program codes (for 1650, 2950 and 4th age]. Will
the
fact that they know secrets of the software influence their play? Even if
they profess that the answer to the previous question is no, is it not
possible they may subconsciously take advantage of software secrets not
known
to the customer players, without their even being aware of it?
** Like what? We could well do - are GMs better players than Players? (Not
sure - note myself and Sam are keen gamers, we played Magic a lot for
example amongst a lot of other games and have played PBM for many years (15
years or so I think) and we pride ourselves on good play. For me MEearth
does not take all of my efforts to play so I know that I do not play as good
as I potentially could.)
When we set up game 77 vs Andy's team (good game so far - we think we have
the edge) we had to learn a lot of things quickly. (Checked out a lot of
websites for information, chatted to some team-mates about strategy etc) We
have a couple of player friends hooked on the game now! (And no I am
not telling which nations they are playing! After the game yes). The only
bit of information that I can think of is that I have seen a lot of players
215 and very few 210s when turns process. But I would hardly count that
(it's not secret hidden game mechanics). One thing I think it does promote
for us a player perspective. The number of times I have checked out a
ruling for my own use (read the rules a lot is my advice) are well into the
40s now. Last example of that was 798 pick up ships and 830 movenavy - I
knew there was something about why you used the 798 order. Another example
was the DragonLord capital army winning the battle vs the Sindar (?) Having
run the combat emulator a few times myself (and Sam a lot) I was aware that
it was not always accurate. There is no way that I would do that as a GM.
As we have only played ME for a short period of time (comparitively) then I
think that we are behind the most experienced players. We have been
successful as GMs playing the game overall - (too successul you might ask?)
so the loss of me46 was a relief to the GM side but not the player side
(argh!) (This was a team of GMs plus friends for those unaware 3 way FA
game where the DS got knocked out earlyish and then we lost vs the FP in the
end game).
So overall I would say that as GMs we have minimal extra information and
even when we do have it then I don't give that information out. (Note I
don't know what he over-run proportion is - something that is asked a lot -
as a player I have an approximate idea and happy to share that - but be
careful when asking for GM vs player information - I will clearly indicate
(I hope) when it is one over the other.)
As for the moderators needing to engage in play to become better
moderators,
that superficially sounds good but does not stand the test of logic.
*** I strongly disagree for all the reasons mentioned.
It is
surely possible for the employees to run a playtest game amongst
themselves,
not for competition, but to try out different things for the purpose of
gaining experience with various situations which may occur in the game.
Therefore it is not necessary for the moderators to play in open
competition
in order to gain experience.
I don't agree that it as valid if you don't mind me saying. Playing in a
game is much more different to running a simulation. And running a
simulation only does that - you learn how to run simulations well. Playing
a game teaches you how the game works from a player perspective, what
thoughts go through players minds when something occurs, random elements and
their impact, the list is endless. I am convinced (running PBM for years
now) that a GM who plays in a game he runs (well that others run but the
game is the same) is a much better moderator of the game. This then helps
out the players and provides a better game ad infinitum. When a problem
comes up it gives a much clearer indication as to what is appropriate action
to take or not.
As an alternative, a moderator might "look over
the shoulder" of one or more players, following closely the progress of
one
or more nations without actually participating in the game or the players
even being aware that their game was being "watched". In that case,
however,
it would have to be conceded that the moderator would in all likelihood
not
be aware of all the private inter-player communications that regularly
occur.
Too right - check out the 300 emails for game 77 - there is no way that I
could learn as much just by looking at the orders! 
Watching orders does
not give this information. (It helps with some things but not that much).
In principle this situation is no different than one in which a government
employee is forbidden to own stock in a corporation over which he has some
regulatory role, or a judge being expected to recuse himself from any case
in
which he could be perceived as having some personal interest. In the case
of
your game, the monetary implications are very small, but nevertheless the
principle remains the same. The highest ethical standard is to avoid any
possibility of a perceived conflict of interest.
Yes this has detrimental affects though, and we don't have any fun. We
provide a better service, more knowledge of the game than GMing alone. This
is clearly shown by Stuart's excellent GM service, knowledge of the game
(Rob and Sam know the most about playing the game at present I would say)
but the way that DGE was run (ie losing players, less games, less options,
less input as time went on) compared with our choices (I think they are
better within the limited framework that we are allowed). I think that there
is a clear difference (in our favour).
Basically, yes we could cheat or abuse our positions, as we could with ANY
of numerous aspects of running the game but our record shows that we do not
(or are so good that you ain't caught us yet! ) (For humour just in
case).
Experience with us hopefully shows that. For those new to us then I hope
that time will tell. I have no doubt that I cannot convince some players of
this but I am happy to put in my thoughts here.
Clint
Ed
In a message dated 7/24/01 9:24:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
me@MiddleEarthGames.com writes:
<< 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
>>
Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
