Ethics question

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

I recently saw an opening for Germany with 12 centers and 10 units in a game
(Kapow on USOS) on the openings list. I ventured to take over the position,
and the take-over was allowed. I contacted the GM because I was familiar
with oneof the two other players signed on the game. I offered to resign
without submitting orders if the GM had any reason to want me to do so.

Instead of responding, the GM (Rob-dt@yahoo.com) chose to adjust the
deadline and set WAIT. I communicated with the two other players in the
game and learned that the vacancy was one of two created by ejecting a
player controlling two powers (Germany and Turkey). I also learned that
Turkey had been taken over only recently - since the cheater was ejected -
and was willing, perhaps even eager (13 centers w/12 units), to continue,
and to try for a solo win.

The GM, at the urging of the only other player (France <10/9>) opted to poll
the original players and then announced that the game would be declared a
draw. As I had already entered my build orders, he over-rode those orders
and assumed my identity to enter a "DRAW: Yes" command, despite his full
knowledge that I would not agree to a draw.

It is my contention that Rob-dt acted unethically in:
polling non-survivors on a DIAS vote;
favoring the single player; and
assuming my identity to enter orders that I objected to.

I would like to know if my anger at this treatment is justified, or if it
really is acceptable practice for a GM to "railroad" his decision in this
way.

Diplomaniac II (a.k.a. glh61136@hotmail.com)

--
It IS possible to play an 'honest' game and still thrive! Cheaters should
all be blacklisted

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Good of you to splash the GMs name all over the place. Very ethical,
really. Surprised you didn't post his home address and phone number, too.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

glh1936@excite.com wrote:
> I recently saw an opening for Germany in a game
> (Kapow on USOS) on the openings list. I learned that
> the vacancy was one of two created by ejecting a player
> controlling two powers (Germany and Turkey).
>
> The GM opted to poll the original players and then
> announced that the game would be declared a draw.
> As I had already entered my build orders, he over-rode
> those orders and assumed my identity to enter a "DRAW:
> Yes" command, despite his full knowledge that I would
> not agree to a draw.

> It is my contention that Rob-dt acted unethically in:
> polling non-survivors on a DIAS vote;
> favoring the single player; and
> assuming my identity to enter orders that I objected to.
>
> I would like to know if my anger at this treatment is justified,
> or if it really is acceptable practice for a GM to "railroad" his
> decision in this way.

Your anger is not justified. The game should have been
terminated without a result, since two of the three surviving
Powers had been controlled by one person. So, you got
partial credit for a Draw, that you don't really deserve.
The Game Master always has the right to terminate a game,
or force a Draw, if he decides it is necessary, that's why he's
called the Game Master.

Eric.
--

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

glh1936@excite.com wrote:

> I would like to know if my anger at this treatment is justified, or if it
> really is acceptable practice for a GM to "railroad" his decision in this
> way.

Save your anger for the player who cheated. As Eric said, in fact by
getting a draw you got more than you mght have expected; the most
appropriate approach would have been to terminate the game without a result.

> It IS possible to play an 'honest' game and still thrive! Cheaters should
> all be blacklisted

And, for the most part, they are; I would imagine that when the deceit
was uncovered the GM would have consulted with the JK, and that player
has almost certainly been backlisted, at least on that judge. (And IIRC,
the JKs are pretty quick at distributing that kind of info between them).

Alastair

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

In message <1119047155.caa6781a9039fdf5d6a6f1f50eea535a@teranews>,
glh1936@excite.com writes
>I recently saw an opening for Germany with 12 centers and 10 units in a game
>(Kapow on USOS) on the openings list. I ventured to take over the position,
>and the take-over was allowed. I contacted the GM because I was familiar
>with oneof the two other players signed on the game. I offered to resign
>without submitting orders if the GM had any reason to want me to do so.
>
>Instead of responding, the GM (Rob-dt@yahoo.com) chose to adjust the
>deadline and set WAIT. I communicated with the two other players in the
>game and learned that the vacancy was one of two created by ejecting a
>player controlling two powers (Germany and Turkey). I also learned that
>Turkey had been taken over only recently - since the cheater was ejected -
>and was willing, perhaps even eager (13 centers w/12 units), to continue,
>and to try for a solo win.
>
>The GM, at the urging of the only other player (France <10/9>) opted to poll
>the original players and then announced that the game would be declared a
>draw. As I had already entered my build orders, he over-rode those orders
>and assumed my identity to enter a "DRAW: Yes" command, despite his full
>knowledge that I would not agree to a draw.
>
>It is my contention that Rob-dt acted unethically in:
> polling non-survivors on a DIAS vote;
> favoring the single player; and
> assuming my identity to enter orders that I objected to.
>
>I would like to know if my anger at this treatment is justified, or if it
>really is acceptable practice for a GM to "railroad" his decision in this
>way.

So the GM advertised for substitutes, found substitutes, conducted a
poll which did not include these substitutes, and then told the
substitutes that they were not to be allowed to play. While all of his
actions may have been justified, it seems to me that doing them in a
different order would have been an improvement.

Nick
--
Nick Wedd nick@maproom.co.uk

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Nick Wedd wrote:
> In message <1119047155.caa6781a9039fdf5d6a6f1f50eea535a@teranews>,
> glh1936@excite.com writes

>> I recently saw an opening for Germany with 12 centers and 10 units
>> in a game (Kapow on USOS) on the openings list.

> So the GM advertised for substitutes, found substitutes,

Well, no. He failed to set the game No List while he dealt
with the cheater, but he did not actively recruit substitutes.

> conducted a poll which did not include these substitutes,
> and then told the substitutes that they were not to be allowed
> to play. While all of his actions may have been justified, it
> seems to me that doing them in a different order would have
> been an improvement.

Oh, yes, I'm not complimenting the GM on the way he
handled the situation, but his behavior was in no way
unethical.

Eric.
--

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Having read the responses to my question, I can only conclude that what Rob
did WAS indeed ethicallly sound, and that I owe him an apology.

Since I made the complaint here, in public forum, I will make the apology in
the same forum:
** Rob, I apologize for questioning your ethics.

** I will not offer an excuse for my ire, since there never is any
justifiable excuse for public accusations thjat are unfounded, **except
ignorance, and that is made obvious in the accusation.

That said, I do wish to thank everyone for their replies, especially the one
who suggested that the sequence of events could possibly have been modified
to avoid this sort of situation. Hopefully, we can eventually weed out all
of the cheaters, so that we needn't ever have such problems arise.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

"Eric Hunter" <hunter90@comcast.not> writes:

I think we should take that part as the key lesson..... GMs, when
you're trying to deal with a difficult situation, set the game
NO LIST while you deal with it... so players like this don't get
caught up in something that they don't understand.

Agreeing with what the others said as well, there still is too much
cheating out there that essentially is impossible to police without
unified will and backing up GMs who are volunteers.

Jim-Bob

>Nick Wedd wrote:
>> In message <1119047155.caa6781a9039fdf5d6a6f1f50eea535a@teranews>,
>> glh1936@excite.com writes

>>> I recently saw an opening for Germany with 12 centers and 10 units
>>> in a game (Kapow on USOS) on the openings list.

>> So the GM advertised for substitutes, found substitutes,

>Well, no. He failed to set the game No List while he dealt
>with the cheater, but he did not actively recruit substitutes.

>> conducted a poll which did not include these substitutes,
>> and then told the substitutes that they were not to be allowed
>> to play. While all of his actions may have been justified, it
>> seems to me that doing them in a different order would have
>> been an improvement.

>Oh, yes, I'm not complimenting the GM on the way he
>handled the situation, but his behavior was in no way
>unethical.

>Eric.
>--

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

> As I had already entered my build orders, he over-rode those orders
> and assumed my identity to enter a "DRAW: Yes" command, despite his
> full knowledge that I would not agree to a draw.

I think that assuming another's identity is never good. I don't know
how the game master system works, and whether he could issue a draw
without changing your moves, but if he cannot I think that the system
should be changed so that a GM never has to 'assume' another's
identity.

A GM should have the power to override moves without having to 'assume'
another's identity, as with an administrator on a computer.

I do think that the appropriate result was obtained, and that in the
end is the important thing.

-Calvyn