Opinions on ethics of this PBW move

[Wardad]

Originally posted by Gozra:
I also think it is very funny when you do something in a game...

The point is: This was not done wholly in the game. This manuever was done in part in the "real world", by the host. A host who is placed in a position of trust and power. Would this host allow the other players to pull such a trick?

Had the 2nd empire surrendered to the host, it would be tough luck Chuck.

OT: From a short story: Young crippled boy enters a game and his computer aids him. Computer "discovers" players have aliases and a hidden resource called money. When a player drops from the game and appears in the obituary, the plot thickens...

-------------------------------------------------
We live for the WALK, we die for the WALK. Woof!

[Gozra]

I amend my quote to say "with in the game evironment." That includes the real world. Is it OK to e-mail outside a game and talk about the game and make deals that affect the game? I know several folk that do with out a second thought. I would also like to point out that surrender is a two edge sword. Some one surrendered to me in a game once and all thos worlds in the empire imediatly(sic) rioted. And a few turns later I my empire went down the tubes because the other empire Cost too much to take over. In a situation like that as host I would ask all the game players if such a manuver(sic) was OK or not. I believe that the hosts main job is to insure all players have fun with a level playing field to start on.

[PvK]

Surrender should require acceptance from the recipient, and is worth considering to disallow it at all when setting up games.

However, in the case described, where two empires who were both partners use surrender to become one, it's not necessarily an advantage, depending on the circumstances. I already wrote about this earlier today, but a few points:

1. The union empire will be more likely to trigger and stay in MEE status.

2. The union can now only do 12 intel projects instead of 24.

3. The union can't trade with itself anymore, reducing production, research, and intel by up to 20%.

4. The union can only send one diplomatic message to each other empire per turn, instead of two. It also has to have one treaty state with each other empire, instead of being able to have multiple treaty states, which can be taken advantage of in several ways.

5. The union now has half the limit on max ships and units in space for the scenario, compared to what it had as two empires.

PvK

[tesco samoa]

I had that happen in a pbem game. I was beating a human player and he surrendered to a computer player. I was pissed and told him that it was crap. Since he was not even at war with the computer player. It is a spiteful move. I asked the guy why he did that and the resonse was that it would make the computer harder. So I informed the player that that was the Last PBEM game he plays with me until he cuts that crap out. Hey 100 hours invested into a game.... and it is one of the unwritten rules of any stag. pbem game. Always surrender to those that attack you. If you wish to play another game.

[mac5732]

The question I believe is one of ethics. However, several points need to be addressed before various judgements are made (in my opinion only)

1st, what, if any, were the rules or restrictions upon which the game was originaly set up?
a. was this situation addressed prior in anyway

2nd Did the person in question do it maliciously or innocently as part of trying to win the game without meaning any harm?

3Rd What was the reason for the surrender to the other player. Was there something else other then a way to win??

4th As a host, (in my opinion only) it appears on the surface that he should have at least explained to the other players as to why and what for, as otherwise, no matter how you look at it and whether it was allowed or not, was in poor taste.

Was it cheating? If it was not addressed or restricted prior to play, then whether one likes the results or not, it is legal in game turns. If no one said it can't be done then there was no restriction on its usage, tho again it was in poor taste unless there is mitigating circumstances.

Therefore, if it was not discussed, restricted, or specifically not allowed prior to starting the game, then its use is legal during the game, again whether one likes or not..

I would discuss it with him and see what his explaination is. If its just his way of trying to win then you learned a lesson in game play...discuss aspects of game prior to playing..

just some ideas mac

[QuarianRex]

I think that the real problem here is not that the player surrendered to someone other that than his aggressor, which is a valid tactic depending on the situation, the problem seems to be that he essentially surrendered to himself.

He surrendered to the number two player and then took over that player, possibly controlling more power than he did previously. What should have been a selfless act to preserve the Last vestige of his population was turned into a cheesy manuver to get more power and a fresh start without having to work for it.

Surrender is itself an act of defeat, whether it is a reward to a conquoring empire or as a Last ditch attempt to preserve some of your accomplishments by entrusting them to those you would consider a kindred spirit. Whatever form it takes it is an acknowledgement of the fact that you were not strong enough to survive on your own.

When this is 'faked' in a craven bid for power it cheapens us all.

My melodramatic ramble now comes to an end.

[PvK]

The main problems I see are if this was a game where victory was based on score (which is a problem in itself); then the issue that the receiving empire does not have to agree; and that it can cause a period of at least one turn of unexpected peace for the enemy, who if he had a state of peace with the recipient, will suddenly not be able to intercept or follow through on attacks, at least for a turn (after which he can choose to declare war on the recipient or not).

AFAIK however, none of these were the case in the example this thread started out about. In which case, as I've explained twice, I don't see this as much of an advantage in general, and I do see it as disadvantageous in several ways.

The other cases can cause some problems, like in the "surrendering to the AI" part. Really the attacker should be allowed to keep attacking the target worlds, at least until given a chance to decide whether to declare war on the "new enemy" or not.

Having said all that though, there are a couple of related tactics that players should decide whether they are clever and legal or inappropriate (I could go either way, myself):

1) When another empire is mopping up a defeated empire, getting it to surrender to you, even though you weren't really attacking it.

2) When some of your ships or colonies are in danger, gifting them to other empires, to protect them from your enemies. (At least the recipient gets to choose whether to accept or not.)

Of course, surrender can simply be disabled during scenario setup.

PvK

[Lisif Deoral]

I think some problems might be solved if a surrender proposal had to be accepted by the other empire. Anyway, it would be then identical to a gift/tribute...
Another thing I think could be useful would be allowing the game creator to disable ship trading as well as tech trading.

[tesco samoa]

Guess its not a question of ethics but a question of how much do you value the time and effort that everyone put into the game?

perhaps?