Opinions on ethics of this PBW move

DavidG · #1 May 20th, 2002, 09:43 PM

Well as I mentioned somewhere in this thread the players in the game that prompted my original post agree there was NO evil plot intended (just perhaps a poor desision and a host up too early in the morning :-) ) I'm now just curious what people think of the rule that allows a player to surrender to an ally. Personally I don't like it. I'm thinking perhaps a better way to deal with surrender would be simply remove the surrender button and make it such that a player could only surrender by accepting the demand of another player.

Edited to read 'NO evil plot' Oops. didn't make sense before.

Quote:

Originally posted by mac5732:

Have you asked or explained your concern to the other player? If so and he says tough, then after I bashed his stars, I'd walk...

just some ideas mac

[ May 21, 2002, 01:13: Message edited by: DavidG ]

Gozra · #2 May 20th, 2002, 10:01 PM

I also think it is very funny when you do something in a game that no one has thought of before. I have done this and been called a Bas---d, cheat, and other discriptive terms. And caused players to quit and end the game on more than one occasion. So what is ethical and what is not? Would you use that surrender tactic? I had some one in one game sign a partnership aggrement with me with the intent it was a game winning partnership. they broke it and started a suprise war. The only reason they used that tactic was it was tried on them and they collapsed in 4 turns. ( the war continues at this very moment.) So again I believe if the Game allows you to do it then its OK. Note: I did not say it that it is the right or ethical Thing to do. I am for Gentle Beings rules before a game starts.

Gryphin · #3 May 20th, 2002, 10:38 PM

I guess to me, the goal is to play the best game I can. I don't really care if I win or lose. My victory conditions in every game I have played in the past 2 decades has been: "To Have Phun" I look forward to shreading GrowTigga him with my torps. If he surrenders to Mac and his GTW Crusiers, well, "It Suc**s to be me".
Ethics? That is the other guys problem. He has to look himself in the mirror when he shaves. Who does he see? Is he proud of his core values and does he live up to them?

Wardad · #4 May 20th, 2002, 10:49 PM

Quote:

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 · #5 May 20th, 2002, 11:31 PM

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 · #6 May 21st, 2002, 02:16 AM

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 · #7 May 21st, 2002, 02:54 AM

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.