SpielByWeb

[Kanga]

The move by Mercutio was not a style of play. It was not a "new or novel strategy". It is highly unlikely to have been a random bribe chosen for experimental reasons. The only explanation was to change the result of a game for reasons that only Mercutio can answer (but, notablely, never has).

The move is clearly unethical, even if it is not illegal in it's own right. It's worth noting that this would be precisely the way someone would be able to cheat on this site, by using multiple accounts and influencing the result of the game. I doubt that that was what was happening in this game, but if you turn a total blind eye to this move you are in effect condoning cheating.

Most likely it was a one off move in frustration at some event that occured in the game.

[rhmt01]

I don't consider any move short of multiple accounts cheating.

This could be a negotiated win where one player gives one person a win at one game in exchange for another win in another game. In the study of game theory, ethics and morality is never considered, just the result though weighing up future consequences of your actions. In any way, it is a legal play.

Even if it was as a response to a move in a game, this is also a valid strategy. It adds a psychological element to the game, the player basically saying "you screw me and I will spend my whole game getting even with you". As a result, people will think twice before screwing over that player. Developing a "gaming personality" such as this is quite legal (granted it will make you enemies). Hence it is a "strategic option" for long term play.

Many multiplayer games involve deception, backstabbing and other (morally) nasty activities. There is no rule that states you must play "nice".

[Kanga]

[spearjr]

[craw-daddy]

Hmmm, I can feel the flames starting to be lit in different places...

In many games, there's no written rules that state you shouldn't collaborate (or gang up) against other players. However, it's often (not always) understood that any such collaboration should at least be open for "public view".

If what rhmt01 said above (sorry, don't mean to pick on you in particular) is followed by a lot of people, then it's okay if (for example) my friend and I agree to play a three player game of Wallenstein where we don't attack each other *at all* during the game. Then the third person, not knowing about this agreement, will have little, if any recourse during the game. Note that I'm not even suggesting that one person uses multiple accounts. (Also, I'm not advocating such actions...)

This can, of course, happen in either a face-to-face setting or online, but my (purely speculative) guess is that it might be easier to execute in an online setting, partly because my friend and I could always e-mail/phone/PM each other to further our own strategy, without the third player's knowledge of our communication.

Is this ethical? My take is that it isn't and would go against the spirit of the competative nature of the game.

Yes, game theory doesn't necessarily take into account ethics/morality (at least if you consider one-off games unlike repetitive games). After all, game theory has been used to study warfare where you're talking about *real people* being lost as casualties, etc.

In any event, I'm not one of these people who typically argue that "it doesn't say you *can't* do that in the rules!". If you had to explicitly state eveything that can't be done in game rulebooks, then suddenly they become much more cumbersome, and tiresome to read too.

Anyhow, I'm probably starting to ramble now...

[rhmt01]

In the world of play by web, I consider all gloves are off.

I expect other players to be using spreadsheets, writing computer programs to simulate, gamelog mining and anything else to get an edge.

We play play by web for the gaming experience we want to have, not just the fast face to face gaming when pen and paper is frowned upon and other social rules enforced.

We can spend as little or as much time as we like taking our turns without other players physically there waiting. Whether you take advantage of it or not is up to you.

[zal42]

Assuming that there's no multiple account shenanigans, the move seems legal to me. This sort of thing seems to be explicitly allowed in the Santiago rules, too: "Non-binding agreements among players are possible in any phase of any round."

Do I misunderstand?

[Golux13]

If Player A and Player B are collaborating, and the rest of the players know about it, then it's perfectly acceptable unless expressly forbidden by the rules. Impromptu alliances, often the result of table talk, can add to the game. "I won't attack you here if you leave me alone there." (Whether such an alliance is binding is a different matter, but that adds to the game as well. A player must weigh the benefit of breaking his word against the possibility that nobody will ever make such an agreement with him again. )

However, it becomes cheating when Players A and B agree to assist or not attack each other and the other players don't know about it, unless such secret alliances are expressly part of the game. When the other players assume (or have no reason to doubt) that everyone is playing for his own best advantage, then having two players allied skews the game unfairly.

Here's a simple gauge for deciding whether a secret collaboration between two players is acceptable or not: If the other players knew about it beforehand, would they have agreed to play this game with the collaborators? If the answer is no, then it's not acceptable.

Note that this has very little to do with the original scenario, in which no collaboration was shown.

[TMJJS]

It's only a game! I mean really what does it matter in one game on SBW when you are playing 100s or more over the course of time. Of course by my comment you can tell I don't care one bit what my stats are! I come here to play the game and try out different things - most of which results in losing the game (you all can join my open games that begin with the word SWEET).

To get back on topic, we would need to hear from the person involved, but when I 1st started to play games I made moves that would be considered KINGMAKING just becuase I didn't understand the game and clicked buttons to see what would happen. However, even if it was Kingmaking, - it happens, get over it! Move on to another game and put the past in the past.

Anyways, that's my 2 cents and take it for what you paid for it

[andrew6261]

[rhmt01]

While the threat not to play with another player is a strong threat in face to face play, it is pretty weak here unless you wanted to play passworded games. Sure they won't be invited to passworded games, but can walk into any open game with slots, whether the existing participants like it or not.

Most games I have seen might not have a single message from start to finish. I'm sure people play PBW just like they do a computer game, just with waiting (especially with santiago, reef and others do not have a computer version atm). So the social aspect doesn't even come into it.

Also unenforeable would be the rule of "open discussion" within a game. While it easy when all players are sitting at a table to insist that all discussion be heard by all at the table, short of monitoring all PMs, email, and instant messaging you cannot be sure.

[andrew6261]

That's a valid point you make about joining games. Options are to join open games as the last player when you can see who else has signed up or create passworded games, but you're certainly exposed if a known problem player (who has attacked you unreasonably in the past to the detriment of his own game) sneaks into last spot in a gamelist, and the game starts automatically, but why would they do so?

My reaction in such an instance would not be to avoid offending the player and stay away from them, but to write the game off as not worth investing time in and go all out for the problem player (whose signing up for the game would surely be provocative anyway).

Apart from the issue in question of problem players, I wonder whether it might be a helpful addition for all games to have a 'confirm' button when the list is full to give everyone a chance to back out if not committed (not specifically due to the presence of other players on the game list).

Fortunately, this is pretty hypothetical to my experiences on this site.

[MoeKiper]

haha

[billbi2020]

For safe guarding, here's what you ought to do when dealing with a fake id website online: Unless for some established, trusted referral, never ever pay with bitcoins. The best fake id websites will accept credit cards, but not via the internet. There, you will be charged a fee based on how much you want to buy, and nobody is going to ask you for it, unless you specifically ask them to. You need to know that these websites are legitimate businesses, and not fronts for money-hammers. The best fake id websites would require you to fill out a form that would then be verified by phone or through your e-mail account. This way, people can see right off that this is a real, genuine company, and not some bogus front for a business trying to scam you out of your hard-earned money. Be wary as well of fake websites that want to charge you immediately after you make your order. If you're not sure that this is a legitimate website, don't even give it a second look! These fake id websites run a high risk of being scammed. Does the "Contact" page, include an email address, or does it include a phone number? If the "Contact" page doesn't include either a phone number or an email address, then you'll want to avoid sending any more information about yourself to this company. While fake id websites are definitely annoying, they really shouldn't be trusted at all.