[QUOTE=Ed Mills]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.
This is a gimme. No problems here…move along…nothing to see…
I wouldn’t personally do it. I would probably even give him his turn and let him know his ‘teammates’ would probably be a little disappointed about his lack of interest.
I do feel however that the ftf’s this is much more expected. Reason is that, due to it being ftf and the players are actually present to defend information is a bit different than electronic loop holes.
Fully agree with VEO the dude was performing a public service, sorting papers and tidying up
In a recent 2950 game one of our teammates was providing info that we thought could only be found out by someone that had access to other’s sides data or he had access to other side’s data. When he finally predicted something that definitely could only have been garnered from viewing the opposition’s data, 3 of us notified MEG and he dropped the game. The other side dropped right after that and 25 people wasted about 2000 USD on that game.
I will never play with him again. Regardless of how he came about or found the info he will always be a cheat in my book. I don’t need that kind of advantage to win and would do the same thing in future should it occur again.
IMO the Macedonian was an idiot and anyone that looked through it was a cheat. No amount inane rhetoric will change that for me
No hand wringing for me. I’m not computer literate enough to take anything from someone on the internet so I will never have cause to be concerned. Any information I get will be of the given kind so I have no reason to wring my hands.
Celbion
I think you are wrong about the Macedonian and it doesn’t matter either way. To me that falls in the given area of the discussion. Guess by your book that would make me a cheat. However I don’t accept that judgement and we will have to agree to disagree.
Interesting debate which goes a step further than what heppened in both FA43 and 2950/21.
Are those mepbm-“Queensbury” rules needed?. My answer is a strong no.
Reasonning as follow :
There is aliitle or no “shady” conduct happening anymore. One may think it’s a good thing or not, yet as long as those are part of the rules, one has to play “by the rules”, not as one would like the rules to be read.
I’d take that falls within the “pro” vs “anti” neutral powers. Everyone knows I am a strong proponent of havig neutral powers, thus my view might be prejudiced. Preventing “unruled” data acquisition is just another way to neuter the newts, if I may say, key word here is unruled. While, within a side and once lines are drawn I frown as anynoe else, if not more, about peeking at the other side’s pdf (cf a recent 2950 game), while I remain a neut I will not hesitate one second from using any data, either taken or given. That falls within the rules. I was amazed recently that I had to remind the very same issue to a committed power who wanted to send me his pdf, or another who never figured out that for one second I might no be who I advertised to be. Too many things are taken for granted now.
Should anyone want to take any chance about it, there is always GB or team games. I’d vote to keep the “open” area as grey as the rules states.
I’ve said it before, I’ll repeat it again : caveat emptor.
It’s all about “Honor” gentlemen, if you feel low enough as to check your opponenents info, you’re not saying much about your ability to play this game as well as your team-mate’s
I have another real life example for the OPSEC crew. Regularly - i’d say twice a year on average - a team mate inadvertently posts the wrong pdf to the yahoosite without realising it. My practice is to delete the file (mostly I am a moderator) and / or inform my teammate.
Brad, VEO, Ed, Dennis - presumably you’d think that auctioning the pdf on Ebay to the highest bidder was an acceptable alternative course of action as this information had been “given” ?
I assume the information did not have anything to do with what your yahoo site was set up for. You are the administrator. You deleted it, good for you son, go have a cookie.
I’ll make it simple for you. My beliefs are that if you send me information about the game I am playing in, and I determine that it is usefull information I will use that information. I don’t feel obligated to tell you that you are sending me that information because it is YOUR responsibility to make sure you only send out information to those you want to receive it.
I do not hunt the internet trying to find my opponents information. I don’t hack into other peoples web sites. I don’t have time or the inclination to do so. If you are stupid enough however to hand me the information ie the apple falling into my lap then you bear the blame for the consequences, not I. The random email being misrouted is not going to change the outcome of a game that dramatically. Information gleaned from such an email would have to be confirmed for accuracy. Would you simply assume that the information is good and act on it without some kind of confirmation. I wouldn’t that would be stupid, it would make you vulnerable. As I said earlier an indvidual email could be misinformation or it could be a real mistake without some form of confirmation the reader is taking his or her own chances in acting on that information. If it was sent to me directly by the author, I would be curious as to the authors motives. If I am simply one of many addressees then I have decisions to make about the veracity of the received information.
So again, as I said to Brad B, I am not wringing my hands. If through carelessness or just plain error if I receive unsolicited email from someone not on my side in a game I consider that Found information as defined earlier. I consider myself welcome to use that information in anyway I see fit and do not feel the slightest case of guilt about doing so.
Your example does not fall into the distinction I have made.
OPSEC in one paragraph and my name in another? Does this mean I’m “OPSEC”? I dont’ know what that is, and no, don’t care if it was defined above, I might recall reading it, I’ve forgotten as I don’t care, so please consider labels more carefully.
I’d willingly jump into the wagon carrying the Individual Responsibility Crew around. I know what that means. For clarity, in your teammates case, he is responsible for his files. The consequences of ones actions are the responsibility of the one who takes the actions. Whatever happens to that players pdf now is STILL HIS RESPONSIBILITY.
For further clarity, in your teammates case, YOU are responsible for the consequences of whatever actions you take around his file. Your actions were to delete the file and inform your teammate. The consequences were likely appreciation and higher esteem in his eyes.
If I left my pdf lying around, and you sold it on Ebay to an enemy in the game and they used that to nail me, and nail me hard, AND I knew how this all came to be, my reaction would be:
accept responsibility for my actions (“losing” my pdf). I can forsee a number of foul words and poorly typed apology messages to my team, etc
consider what I know and what I’ve assumed about both internet/yahoo security, my general openness surrounding the game (naive, trustingness, to some) and see if/where my Assumptions failed such that I can adjust them to this new reality, or not, as per the investigation
Certainly make a mental note as to the type of person I’m dealing with on Team B who sold my Game A pdf to an enemy. All future interactions will be influenced by this experience.
But what I WON’T do is blame others for “bad things” that happen to me, demand/force Clint to do something about it, etc.
And if I found a teammate uploaded a file from another game, I’d do exactly as you would.
Regarding Ed’s scenario of the Macedonian, I would personally Still interpret it as b.) taking. And I agree with all who say the Macedonian is a git. OMG you say! can’t Dave see it’s being freely given? well, let’s put it in a more real-word light: what if it was a wallet with $100 in it and his picture ID, including his name. Taking it is, yep, b.) taking it.. He didn’t give it to you. Giving it to you is an action on his part. Taking it is an action on your part.
The allusions of linear thinking, lack of roleplaying ability, and other inferences of inferiority against those that advocate that the rules be clarified are the typical ad-hominen attack of those lacking rational argument. When people can’t win an argument through logic, it is sadly a common tactic to resort to insult and innuendo.
If you don’t like the suggestion of the 2 part rule: a. giving vs. b. taking,
then propose something specific to clarify the situation. We obviously need rules clarification given the length of this post and the interest it has evoked in the player community. Let’s resolve it rationally, not through insult & innuendo.
David, the wallet analogy was probably not the best one you could have chosen. For a fact, if a person found a wallet, examined it’s contents, wrote down the name and address of the owner, then returned the wallet with contents intact to where he found it, he would not be accused of theft. He would not be subject to criminal or civil sanctions.
You are trying to legislate new law. Any need for which evaporates if players spend two seconds and ask themselves "Is this wise? Is this secure?’
As you can see from some of the comments above, not everyone agrees with your conclusion. Perhaps there is more grey here than you are willing to admit.
The wallet analogy is exactly perfect. if you take the money (use the information) for your own use, you’re stealing. If you return it (i.e. not looking at the information), then you’re not.
I understand perfectly well that there is difference of opinion. i am trying to propose a solution. If you don’t like my solution, propose a different one.
Here’s a solution. Accept the fact that others don’t see it your way and move on.
You can choose to interpret things any way that you want to. The fact that I don’t accept your interpretation does not make either one of us right or wrong. I don’t care if you choose to ignore the Macedonian’s pdf. I however believe it is the Macedonians fault that the information was there in the first place. I do not agree with your position that it is stealing. I don’t think the wallet and the pdf are the same. I think the Macedonian has no right to assume that the secrecy of what is in his pdf will remain private information anymore than a magazine publisher has expectation that the information in his magazine will not be read by only the subscribers if that magazine is left in the waiting room of a doctors office. It all gets back to assume responsibility for what you do or fail to do. All this talk is a waste of time. I don’t think you can write a rule to account for this situation.
You choose what you want to do with found information that came to you without any overt act on your part. Those that do not agree with your position can do the same. I’ll not post on this thread again. I’ve already made up my mind on how I will approach the situation.
Brad J.,
i accept that others see it differently from me. That is EXACTLY the point that started this thread in the first place. The author sought to see if there was a common interpretation of the rules. Since people are interpreting the rules differently, there should be a rules clarification. ME Games, as moderator & GM is the only source for rules clarifications. Either something is allowed, or it is not allowed. if some people interpret the “macedonian anecdote” as cheating and some as ok, then a rules clarification is necessary.
While I have an opinion on what the rule should be, I’m only one vote. I don’t really care so much what the rule turns out to be as I do that it be clarified so there’s a common understanding.
I think far more agree with Dave than not. Just because some are loud, paranoid and try their hand at sophistry does not make them the majority.
I am all for people being responsible for their security. However to me using the info even if it fell in your lap is cheating and I will always treat players that do so as such. No one wants to win more than I do, but I would not use enemy intel (no matter how it was gathered) to do it. I will win without it.
I fully agree, this can be a good thread to thrash this stuff out. All in IMO. More the merrier lets flog this horse
We need a rule clarification that is minimal work for the GM and pretty clear. There will always be ‘bush’ lawyer interpretations but if the priciple is sound then no worries mate
I agree that more players seem to be heading down the Honourable pathway and the simplicity of the ‘give’ Vs ‘take’ seems reasonable. I would also feel that the Macedonian scenario is a ‘take’ but think that the ‘git’ factor complicates most scenarios. I do however feel that ‘forgiving’ out of game errors is an easily afforded luxury in a fantasy war game, esp if it leads to a better played game. I’ve met a few complete tossers over the years that have been excellent ‘game’ strategists, just hopeless ‘life’ strategists.
Maybe the inverse my original concept. ‘Standard’ game uses the honourable give Vs take concepts and the other is a free for all, anything (not illegal) goes.
Requires a minor rule statement, gives both sides of the case the opportunity to play the way they want. Policed by honour or lack thereof
[QUOTE=Ed Mills]David, the wallet analogy was probably not the best one you could have chosen. For a fact, if a person found a wallet, examined it’s contents, wrote down the name and address of the owner, then returned the wallet with contents intact to where he found it, he would not be accused of theft. He would not be subject to criminal or civil sanctions.
Sorry Ed depends where you live and what you do. If you only look at the name address etc and return no worries. If however you leaf through his credit cards and bills, read a letter and invoice two and then sell that information or use it to disadvantage the wallets owner, in many places in the world your goose is cooked. Sorry dude, don’t stand up in most of the civilized world and in the uncivilized world some one would waste you:eek:
There is a lot of conclusion jumping here. The conclusion that the credit card was maxed out. If you reread Brad J’s account (I was not in that particular game at that particular time) the only use made was persuading an important neutral to join one particular side–he now had reason to question the competence of the Macedonian.
If you must use the wallet example: Mr. ‘A’ tells Mr. ‘B’ “Hey, I found Mr. “C”'s wallet under such-and-such circumstances. He sure is careless with his money”. Mr. ‘B’ says “That guy just asked me for a loan. I can’t give money to such a careless person”.
This game does have an ethical system applying to it. That of the Epic, via the game creators. The Epic is a morality play based on the struggle between Good and Evil. When given that choice some (like Gladriel) withdraw. Some (like Sarumen) choose Evil. Some (like Gandalph) choose Good. Stassun and Feild are giveing you free choice.
It would be a bland and colorless Epic if only good was allowed. Real Life would be bland and colorless if we were all alike and none of us in the third standard deviation. This would be a bland and colorless game if we were forced to all become Gandalph. Free choice is what this game is realyy about. Be Good, be Evil or withdraw when things get stressful.
I couldn’t disagree more Dave! Instead of more ‘rules’ we need to simply take responsibility for our own actions.
The administrator of a yahoogroup that leaves his MEPBM group open to the public has ‘given’ the information every bit as much as the ‘git’ who left his turn printout on the gaming convention table. I would venture to guess that Yahoo’s TOS on groups are such that any group that isn’t specifically closed can be joined by anyone in the public.
If you don’t want your enemy to see your turns, don’t leave them lying about on public tables, nor leave your yahoogroup open to the public. Some posters to this thread (and the other) have mentioned the folly of trying to legislate morality; trying to protect people from their own foolishness is equally foolish.
On a more fundamental level, of the hundreds (I dunno, maybe thousands?) of ME games started in the yahoogroup era, how many have had a problem due to an enemy accessing the group? Let’s not create more rules (or house rules, whatever you want to call 'em) for such an infrequent event.
