Opinions on ethics of this PBW move - Page 2

Wardad · #11 May 20th, 2002, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DavidG:
Hello I was just wondering what you guys think of this move my opponent in a PBW game just did. He is in 1st place and his partner in 2nd place is an open slot. So he surrenders to his partner and then next turn gets approved to take over his partners empire. Frankly I think this is basically cheating or at the very least extremly unethical.

Well, getting back to the original post....
I think the other players should vote with their feet... and quit.

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

DavidG · #12 May 20th, 2002, 09:01 PM

Gee I didn't this would turn into an historical discussion. Forget the analogy. My point was that this type of surrender is not really a surrender at all since no miltary force is eliminated. (in fact it becomes stronger) It is just a political manouver. One in which can often unbalance the game.
And yea, hehe, I have remineded by freinds what 4X stands for. Guess the just prefer 3X games.

Master Belisarius · #13 May 20th, 2002, 09:12 PM

DavidG: I had the same experience that you have... then, never joined again to any PBW game, before be sure that the option to surrender was dissabled.

Gozra · #14 May 20th, 2002, 09:27 PM

I would like to reply but with a grim demeanor. If the game allows you to do it it's ok. That Tactic can only work once in a game. then you just inform all the other players what happned and The alliance aganist clever tactics is born. As for players who quit and run that bites but, in talking with a new player they were forming up a list of players they liked to play games with and those who are not fun to play with. And I am sure that it coud be arranged to publish it. I personally think it would be not a good thing to do.

Gozra · #15 May 20th, 2002, 09:27 PM

I would like to reply but with a grim demeanor. If the game allows you to do it it's ok. That Tactic can only work once in a game. then you just inform all the other players what happned and The alliance aganist clever tactics is born. As for players who quit and run that bites but, in talking with a new player they were forming up a list of players they liked to play games with and those who are not fun to play with. And I am sure that it coud be arranged to publish it. I personally think it would be not a good thing to do.

Gozra · #16 May 20th, 2002, 09:27 PM

I would like to reply but with a grim demeanor. If the game allows you to do it it's ok. That Tactic can only work once in a game. then you just inform all the other players what happned and The alliance aganist clever tactics is born. As for players who quit and run that bites but, in talking with a new player they were forming up a list of players they liked to play games with and those who are not fun to play with. And I am sure that it coud be arranged to publish it. I personally think it would be not a good thing to do.

mac5732 · #17 May 20th, 2002, 09:28 PM

ask them to divy up the spoils amongst the other players, or take and make the defunct empire a computer controled one, OR.... My favorite, Build lots of cloaked Star Destroyers and send them to make diplomatic calls on his most important systems...

That is why it is important to have all rules down before play starts saves hard feelings and other problems.

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

DavidG · #18 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 · #19 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 · #20 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?