You’re a fun guy to argue with Dave, especially when you’re wrong. <bg>
[not as much fun to argue with when you’re not I might hasten to add…]
LOL Drew. I win some and I lose some… arguments that is…
Well Dave I guess the point is Drew never got over the fact that you’re a Democrat 
ouch we DON’T talk about politics here, sry 
Well to quote one of my home state Oklahoma’s favorite sons, Will Rogers, I’m not a member of any organized political party, I’m a Democrat…
It’s always advisable to think long and hard before legislating to cover some perceived problem. It’s always wise to ask “is this problem actually covered by existing rules and practices?” In this case I think it is. In any case, I don’t see that the problems being discussed here actually fall under ME Game’s jurisdiction.
Theer’s also the point that new rules means work for ME Games, plus the potential cost of new rulebooks. (Assuming we ever get past the debate of paper vs online rules). All of which means costs for ME Games … who will quite rightly pass those costs on to us.
- Colin
Hey! That’s how I started the thread!
Indeed it is 
I guess I’m saying that no new rules are needed.
Is it against the rules to look at something, hack a site, etc? “No.”
Do I believe that a rules clarification is needed? No, because if someone is going to cheat, they’re going to cheat. Half of the discussion boils down to “It’s not really cheating, so it’s OK. If it were wrong, then there’d be a rule against it.” Alas, there’s a distinction. Something can not be against the rules, and still be cheating.
If we’re playing poker, there’s no rule in poker that you can’t look at my cards when I’m out of the room going to the bathroom, answering the door, etc. There’s also no rule that you can’t slip an ace or two out of the deck, hide it in your sleeve, and then substitute them for your own cards when you want. The rules don’t explicitly say you can’t do that. But it certainly is cheating.
Think this entire issue with common sense. Whether you personally believe going into the enemy web-site or looking at a pdf left laying out is acceptable or not, it is crystal clear that many other players do consider it cheating. This is a GAME. The purpose is not to win at all costs, or we wouldn’t care about using steroids in professional sports, drugging the opposing side, poisoning the visiting team’s water supply so that they get the runs (“there’s no rule against it! They should have brought bottled water!”) and can’t play etc.
If you take advantage of someone’s mistake in getting into an opposing website etc, then you can assume that (1) the other side will be furious (2) people will quit (3) you will have destroyed the game for yourself and twenty-four other people. You won’t have won, you will have triggered a mass drop. Congratulations. (4) the parties involved will remember you and will make a mental note any time they see you again in any other game. "Oh look, there’s Mr. X. Gosh, I think I’ll join the other side as a neutral. Gosh, I think I WON’T send him gold that he needs. Darn, too bad he bankrupted.
Do you really want this sort of reputation? Do you really want to win a game because the other side simply quit? What’s the point?
That said, while I agree with Dave (there is a difference between taking information and someone giving it) I do not believe that a rule is needed. At some point you have to trust the integrity of the people that you’re playing against. You can’t plan against every possible varient of cheating.
Bradford
Again, the individual is responsible for his lax security, and the “cheater” is responsible for the consequences of his actions (furious, people quit, reputation, etc…). Now, let’s let the people choose their behaviour, as it’s the same community of people who (mostly) choose the consequences.