New Rules Needed

[VEO]

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.

[Kitirat]

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:
1) 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.
2) 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.
3) 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.

[Elf baiter]

You can not use rules to police things outside your control.

Self-policing is the only realistic way to do it IMO.

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.:D

Also has the adv that you don't need to re-write the bible:D

Adrian

[happymadcat]

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.

Guy

[Ed Mills]

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.

[Kitirat]

[/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.

See ya,
Ken

[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.

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.

Brad

[Clint]

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?...

Clint

[DaveHolt]

Gentlemen,

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.

Dave

[Kitirat]

What Dave said hit the nail on the head IMO.

See ya,
Ken

[happymadcat]

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 :p Hmmmm, is that a donut with elf sauce?

[Brad Jenison]

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.

Brad J

[BaaBaaRox]

[I] 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. :-)

Clint


You were offered money to take a bribe? Does that mean you sometimes take a bribe without being offered money? :)


[I] 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.

Clint


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 :-)

[DaveHolt]

What if a player sends you an email with game information on it.
...
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.

Brad J

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.

[VEO]

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?

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.

[VEO]

If you receive this information unsolicited what are you to do with it?

Whatever you want.

[VEO]

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.

So why all the hand-wringing?

[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.

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?

[Elf baiter]

[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.


Adrian

[VEO]

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!

[Elf baiter]

[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

Adrian

[Celebion]

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?


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

[Brad Jenison]

VEO,

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.

Brad J

[Bakta]

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.

Didier

ps : The macedonian is a complete git.

[Halex13]

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

[BaaBaaRox]

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

Indeed



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" ?

[Brad Jenison]

Nope,

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.

Brad

[VEO]

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" ?

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:

1) 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
2) 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
3) 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.

[DaveHolt]

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.

[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.

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.

[DaveHolt]

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.

[Brad Jenison]

Dave,

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.

[DaveHolt]

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.


Dave

[Celebion]

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.

My 2 coppers.

Steve

[Elf baiter]

I fully agree, this can be a good thread to thrash this stuff out. All in IMO. More the merrier lets flog this horse :p

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 :D

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 ;)

Adrian
(the simple:D )

[Elf baiter]

[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:

Adrian

[Ed Mills]

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.

[Drukarzun]

We obviously need rules clarification given the length of this post and the interest it has evoked in the player community.

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.

Drew

[smuller]

Instead of more 'rules' we need to simply take responsibility for our own actions.

sometimes less is more...well written.

sm
now to get to smacking you in 239...

[DaveHolt]

Drew, Drew, Drew... I should have guessed that if I said "white", you'd say "black"... just for the fun of it!!!! LOL

[Drukarzun]

Drew, Drew, Drew... I should have guessed that if I said "white", you'd say "black"... just for the fun of it!!!! LOL


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...]

[DaveHolt]

LOL Drew. I win some and I lose some... arguments that is...

[Mormegil]

Well Dave I guess the point is Drew never got over the fact that you're a Democrat :D :D :D

*ouch* we DON'T talk about politics here, sry ;)

[Drukarzun]

Well Dave I guess the point is Drew never got over the fact that you're a Democrat :D :D :D

*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...

[loraelin]

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

[VEO]

Hey! That's how I started the thread!

[loraelin]

Indeed it is :-) I guess I'm saying that no new rules are needed.

[br_fisher]

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

[VEO]

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.