I personally don’t think MEGames needs any new rules. Sorry about wasting all your time with a new thread. Yahoo is yahoo. A few months from now, new games will start, new players will create new yahoo groups. and someone, somewhere, will happen upon it in the public directory… What,exactly, should Clint do about the possiblity that somewhere, out there, beyond the MEGames sphere of technoligical influence, people do things that the majority consider “cheating”…
Any other new rules required? And please, ensure a minimum of administrative overhead required for enforcement, because I already pay enough for my turns. Thanks.
You can not use rules to police things outside your control.
Self-policing is the only realistic way to do it IMO.
From the previous thread we see their is variance in opinion. Unlike other areas, these are game breaking. Once someone feels cheated, they generally take action, ruining fun for many people, save those who do not care or believe strongly in “outside sources” being acceptable for use.
Why not start a simple solution. Run a few games with “gentlemen’s” denotion.
Gentlemen’s Game:
"players of this game agree to only use information gained directly from middle earth games (diplo’s, e-mail addresses and subsequent conversations using those emails, turn reports, etc), or from the offical MEPBM forum to gather information obtaining to this game. “spying” or “information gathering” obtained from efforts outside the game are strictly forbidden. To determine if an action is outside the bounds of the “gentlemen rule” use the following guidelines:
Did the source of information (another player) know you had access to it (either through them slipping up in direct communication with you or freely giving you the information). If not, then it is outside the gentlemen’s rule.
Did you use out of game knowledge to obtain the information (hacking into someone’s account or finding out their password, logging onto a unsecured list, knowledge of where someone keeps their turns and then looking at them when they are not around, etc)? If so, it is not allowed under the gentlemen’s denotation.
If otherwise indoubt, contact MEPBM directly for a judgement.
Then run a few normal games as well (without the rule). See which fills up first and how things go.
This takes the pain of policing out of MEPBM’s hands and just lets people decide which way they would like to play.
See ya,
Ken
P.S. As an interesting aside, I’d bet people who play in “standard” games after just reading the gentlemen’s rule will be overly catious. In otherwords, just listing the above as an option lets people know that in normal games it is NOT the rule of thumb. Believe me when I say to most new players I know, they assume the above “rule” was is standard practice, as it is in most games.
Sounds like a v.viable option. I agree denote the ‘gentlemans’ option and make whatever happens now as the ‘standard’ type game. I agree new players will be less naive about the parameters of data sourcing and less people will be caught out by security lapses (i hope). Also stops any of the but he… Because in the ‘standard’ game the response will be v.reasonably; tough dude.
Also has the adv that you don’t need to re-write the bible:D
I like the gentleman’s option, to add to it why isn’t there a clause to the setup of all games that states cheating by spying on other people’s Yahoo groups is against the spirit of fair play. I agree policing outside of ME sphere is hard
if nigh on impossible but the rules should mention this problem.
Yes, Stassun and Feilds have fooled hundreds of gamers over the years. The gamers bring preconceptions with them into the game, essentially thinking this is chess-like, and never reexamine those preconceptions.
For years now, I have been telling people they did not understand the game, be wary, use this as a Real Life training tool, etc. We are practicing the ‘art’ of war not striking noble poses. Perthaps some want a game different from what it was designed and envision to be. There are plenty out there but ME is unique (or almost) why destroy what is unique?
Already the ‘classical’ game no longer exists. It probably never existed in Europe. Since , I think, Allsorts didn’t understand the game any better than Harley did inilially. I’m opposed to FURTHER ersions of Stassun/Feild’s creation----and I have been saying that for years. Let Kin Strife be whatever it may be, but leave what is left of ME alone.
If you dumbed down chess towards checkers, I would win a lot more chess games. Of course, it really wouldn’t be chess any more. Persons unable to function in the jungle should stay out of the jungle. ME is a jungle, it was designed and intended to be a jungle. A well commoflauged jungle. All the ‘gentlemen’ should realize they may fall into a jungle snaretrap if they take their presuppositions with them to the jungle. If unable to function in the jungle, then stay in the biotonical gardens—don’t chop down the jungle.
[/QUOTE]Already the ‘classical’ game no longer exists. It probably never existed in Europe. Since , I think, Allsorts didn’t understand the game any better than Harley did inilially. I’m opposed to FURTHER ersions of Stassun/Feild’s creation----and I have been saying that for years. Let Kin Strife be whatever it may be, but leave what is left of ME alone.
If you dumbed down chess towards checkers, I would win a lot more chess games. Of course, it really wouldn’t be chess any more. Persons unable to function in the jungle should stay out of the jungle. ME is a jungle, it was designed and intended to be a jungle. A well commoflauged jungle. All the ‘gentlemen’ should realize they may fall into a jungle snaretrap if they take their presuppositions with them to the jungle. If unable to function in the jungle, then stay in the biotonical gardens—don’t chop down the jungle.[/QUOTE]
My friend bradford mentioned the same thing about the “classic” game, saying the closest thing now adays is gunboat.
Interesting your thoughts on this. At what point are things no longer reasonable? If I research where you live can I wait till you leave your house, enter your house and take photos of your turn? Is that acceptable, assuming I steal or take nothing outside the game?
As a quick note, allowing you to access information from other players they do not know about does not make the game harder for ya, it makes it easier.
The point of the option is to allow people who want to stay in the gardens in the gardens and those who enter the jungle to know it is a jungle, not gardens.
But Ken, breaking into Ed’s house is a crime punishable by imprisionment. I don’t think anyone in this thread or others has suggested that players would resort to criminal action to gain an advantage. Let’s not exaggerate the situation.
Like Guy, I don’t think ME games can really do much about people stumbling onto others email sites. I don’t even think they can do anything to prevent it. They could ban offenders from the game for a proscribed period of time. However that offender could then take on a different nom de guerre, and email address and get around that. I know they could track down the origin of anyones email as I have seen other administrators do that. However to try and police the ether would take a lot of computer skills and worse yet time. This type of activity; cheating in the case where someone would hack their way into a supposedly restricted site would in my opinion best be policed in the world of public opinion. If you can prove that someone has cheated, then out them. Tell everyone here who the cheater is, if Clint gets enough emails that no one wants to play with this person then he can make the decision to ban him.
I play this game for fun, but I also play to win. I don’t play to win at all costs. I have lost. The game in which I made Ed’s acquaintance was a losing effort. We fought the good fight but in the end were unable to counter the superior play of the opposition. I have also won but had the experience tainted by the inability of my own side to get along. In one game a player of the opposition left his current pdf lying about at a UK face to face. The information to be learned from it was limited, as it was only a single turn for a single nation. We however felt is was his failure not our cheating that made that information available if only for a snap shot. The longer lasting effects of his/her failure was that it allowed us to recruit one key neutral who had been sitting the fence. That breach of security gained us a key ally who felt that it was an indicator of lack of security that he would have to worry about if he joined them. I didn’t feel it was cheating then and still don’t today.
I think players have a right to assume confidentiality if they take normal precautions. I do think hacking into a sight that does not freely give access to outsiders is an act of commission and is thus by my definition cheating. However I do not feel reading a pdf that you find sitting on a table and making notes from it is cheating. If the owner was concerned about protecting that information he should have secured it. I do think taking the pdf home and keeping it would have been stealing and thus cheating.
Let the court of public opinion rule on those who push the envelope. Eventually the envelope will be defined. I don’t feel it is within the capability of ME games to simply dictate the envelope.
I don’t feel it is within the capability of ME games to simply dictate the envelope.
We could dictate it. In the same we define other actions that are not allowed in the game. Eg you cannot join with allied Neutrals (exception 1000 games where you join as a Neutral team and inform us), you cannot have a ringer on the other side, you cannot use a bug etc.
These are all rules outside the normal aspects of the game. Two weeks ago (in a different game I might add, not Middle Earth) I was offered money to accept a bribe, technically that’s not against the rules to accept and modify the game.
Are we playing a make believe, practice war game, a game of intellectual struggle or just a game for fun? Clearly different players are playing it for different reasons, (many include somr or all 3). We have to keep the game together (we can’t split the players into “gentleman” and “others” I’m afraid - you’re effectively asking us to run different games with different rules (gentleman games you are not allowed to do “sneaky” things, in non-gentleman games you are - well define non-sneaky!!!))
We could make a list of what’s not allowed in the game but I think that some players don’t want that. (How many I can’t tell at present and a vote won’t indicate it in any meaningful way at present).
Self-policement is one way forward - don’t do what you wouldn’t want done to you is one ethic that some players use. At present I’m content to leave it upto you, but I think that non-“gentleman” play will in the long run be damaging to your own enjoyment of the game, and those around you. Is that important; clearly yes, is it the be-all and end-all? I don’t know?..
Policing/Rules-enforcement is a very different thing from establishing rules.
In GB, there are clear rules. These rules are difficult-to-impossible to police or enforce. GB is by defnition a gentleman’s game of mutual trust that each player will play within the rules and not communicate with other players about the GB game.
The fact that policing / enforcement was impossible did not prevent GB rules being created.
Please do not confuse policing with the creation or clarification of rules.
I do believe there should be rules clarification. I personally believe it’s quite simple. I’d propose:
a. Any action that results in a player giving another player information is within the rules as conceived by the game designers.
b. Any action that results in a player taking information from another player without their consent, is against the rules and against the game designer’s intent.
Clint may have other special rules (no ringers) that supercede the above two rules. But I think those two are clearly the intent of the game designers. They preserve the “classic” nature that Ed Mills likes in that subterfuge, deception, duplicity, double-crossing, etc are all permitted if they result in players giving information away to you based on a belief that you have instilled in them. Please remember that when this game was created, there was NO WAY TO STEAL information. It was all about deception, subterfuge, duplicity, etc - if that was the kind of game you wanted to play.
Yes, Dave’s simplicity brings clarity to the rule debate and gets my vote.
However I can see a watered down self-policing method by when a player is found guilty of
breaking the second rule; he (or she) is reported through the
respective ME communications. Eg News of Bree, this forum etc. Thus leaves
it up to the players to make a choice of association with such a player. A publish and
degrade policy and it will be up to the repsective and individual members
of the ME forum and the ME community to make their own judgement and consequently their ‘liason’
with such a player.
Structured under playing guidelines a small panel/committee can be setup to investigate into
cheating allegations. An achievable aim of any community espcecially a community such as
ourselves filled with imagination and intelligence. Well, that counts me out Hmmmm, is that a donut with elf sauce?
Even in Dave’s simplified guidelines there is a lot of gray area. What if a player sends you an email with game information on it. Perhaps it is a mistake and he did not mean to send it to you, perhaps he is upset with one or more members of his side and wants them to suffer from having their planned movements provided to the enemy; finally maybe he is a tricksey player and has provided disinformation. All these are done willingly the first perhaps not intentionally, but then who is to be responsible for who you send email to?
If you receive this information unsolicited what are you to do with it? Several choices seem to come to mind. One is to send it back to the sender unopened or unread and ask if they meant for you to receive it? If it was subterfuge or pique does anyone really think the original sender will say so? If it was a mistake I am certain that player may be embarassed at their mistake but how will he know that you did not read it and thus have to tell his team members that he accidentally sent planning information to the other side, and what kind or result will that have. The Game 21 FUBAR thread comes to mind. Players will wonder if this was a one time lapse of security or how much information has been given to the other side and we have the premature drop situation again rise.
To me it boils down to did you have to commit an act of commission to obtain that information. If it came to you by being sent to you or if it was laying around then to me it is in the public domain. If you had to sign on to a teams site or trick someone into sending you information thinking you are someone other than who you really are you have crossed into the realm of cheating.
You were offered money to take a bribe? Does that mean you sometimes take a bribe without being offered money?
There is nothing in the rules against offering bribes, nor about GMs accepting bribes. In war, it is your duty to bribe anyone you can find to gain military advantage. This is a wargame so goddamit bribe the GM !
I am coming to the next FTF just to see what Clint is driving these days
my guideline has no shade of gray in either the first case you mention (and it’s variants), or your acts of commission example.
In the first case, the person gave you the email with game information. it doesn’t matter why. he gave it to you. Thus it falls under a.) giving.
In the second case, the act of commission is indeed committed by going into a group that you were not invited into that contains opponent information. That clearly falls into b.) taking… There is absolute clarity that you don’t belong in that group. There is absolute clarity that it wasn’t given to you. You are choosing to take it. Please refer back to all the posts about unlocked doors on houses, barns, orchards, etc. theft is theft, whether there are locks or not.
YOU are responsible for who you send email to. The recipient is responsible for what he/she does with it. No gray area. “Why” is irrelevant to the fact that the email exists, and it was a) giving.
So, David, lets resolve a very real, very concrete, case that has been alluded to before.
At a game convention a person chances upon a printed ME pdf. It is laying on the table in open view to the public. Several people have looked at it. While the owner of the pdf is engrossed pushing little Macedonians around on a table the person picks up the pdf and sees it is from an a game he is in, and is an enemy pdf. While the Macedonian general conquers Persia the person takes notes out of the pdf and leaves the pdf where he found it.
A. The information was publicly provided and is, therfor, giving?
B. The Macedonian may be a carless idiot, but he gave noone permission to take notes. Yes, several persons actually looked at the pdf but only the person in question took notes from it. Therefor it was taking?
C. How about deliberately leaving a pdf in plain view, then photographing a Dude as he looks at it. Can you then submit him to Happymadcats’ honor court? Is entrapment allowed?
[QUOTE=Brad Jenison]But Ken, breaking into Ed’s house is a crime punishable by imprisionment. I don’t think anyone in this thread or others has suggested that players would resort to criminal action to gain an advantage. Let’s not exaggerate the situation.
Sometimes exaggeration is a valuable tool for scrutinizing your thoughts. A logic tool called ad absurdum, take a concept to the most extreme cases and see how it runs. A useful tool for examining ideas that seem alright at first glance. If only people had used the tool when doing legislative design and various constitutional ‘rights’. Ie: the right to carry a gun… geez ya couldn’t see the US gun death stats comin could ya…
I have always been aware that according to the rules, it’s pretty open to do anything not illegal. I have always personally played like a ‘gentleman’ and will continue to do so.
We also have to remain aware that what is criminal HAS changed to try to keep up. The concepts of 'intellectual property, data fraud and the like will apply even to a leaky yahoo group. Remeber that even in the mailed turn days the paperwork was protected by Federal laws until it had been delivered into your hands ie; pinching it from the letter box after the postie had delivered is mail fraud/theft.
Falls under “giving”. Dude didn’t rifle through a briefcase for it, it was lying in the open. Public domain vs Private domain. Dude might have been trying to determine if it was a document of value, and then of value to whom, or a brochure meant to be read by all passers-by, or whether it was litter… Dude was being considerate, he could have just thrown it away. In fact, I’m quite righteously indignant at all the other people who ignored it. Keep Our Convention Clean!
Hmmmm, is that a donut with elf sauce?