Re: ME-PBM Late Joiners

From: desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)

Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0000

Dennis DeYoung <dcd@nasa.kodak.com> writes:
> I admire your level-headedness and respect your opinion.  I do see your
> point also.

Thank you.

> Let's apply your view of doing anything within the rules, even if the
> majority thinks it's beyond the "spirit" of the game, to another game.
> Let's take Ice Hockey for example.  The game provides no punishment for
> players who do not get caught in the act by the referee.

With all due respect, this is a terrible analogy.  Slashing is
prohibited by the rules, whether or not the referee sees it.  Analogous
behavior in a pbm game would be, for example, forging orders for another
player.  That's not ok, even if the GM doesn't catch you.  I don't think
anyone has said otherwise.

The analog to trying to win an ME-PBM game by joining a team late and
not helping them, building your own economy instead would be, for
example, using the back of your hockey stick to hit the puck into the
net, even though everyone else only uses the front.  I don't see
anything wrong with that.  If the rules say, "Hit the puck into the
net with the stick," and everyone else only uses the front (convex) side
of their stick, that doesn't make it wrong to use the back (concave)
side if you think it gives you a better chance of achieving the goal.

(You would, in general, be wrong to do so, since the concave side of the
stick gives more control.  Just as the player in question was wrong in
thinking that he could win the game in this way.  But players must be
entitled to pursue the strategies that they think best, even if they are
wrong in thinking so.)

> Most games (almost all sports) have a disclaimer in the front which describes
> the "spirit" of the game.

On the contrary, virtually no game that I am familiar with has such a
statement.  I just looked through a half dozen rulebooks and couldn't
find anything of the kind.  At most, it might say "Play should be
friendly."  The play in this case qualifies in that regard: no one has
claimed that the player in question, for example, threatened other
players outside the game, or harassed them in any way, or anything like
that.

In any case, the "spirit," when unwritten, must be determined by
consensus.  That means that the actions and opinions of the player in
question are just as valid a contribution to such a consensus as your
own.  Now, the player in question will probably stop playing ME-PBM,
since it's not much fun to play a game with people who hate you.  And
this is how consensus is reached.  I have already said, more than once,
that _I personally_ view trying to play ME-PBM as a non-team-oriented,
cutthroat, achieve the victory conditions game, doesn't make much sense
to me.  For that reason (among others) I don't play the game.  However I
refuse to concur in condemning someone who does sign up and try to
achieve the victory conditions in the way that he or she thinks best.

> You just don't slash someone on the hand because, under the rules, you
> can get away with it.  If you do you'll find the other players
> enforcing the "spirit" of the game by slashing off your head the next
> time the refs back is turned.

If you mean that when a player attempts to achieve a victory by not
helping his team at all, and joining the team at the last minute, that
all of the other memebers of the team will resent that and work together
to deny him victory, then of course that is right and proper.  That's
what was done in this case, and it worked just fine, exactly as it
should.  If you mean that you will mailbomb his house in retaliation,
then I don't think that's right or proper.  In this case your analogy is
too far stretched to allow me to determine what you have in mind.

David desJardins

References

Re: ME-PBM Late Joiners
desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Mon, 24 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0000

Referenced By

Re: ME-PBM Late Joiners
desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Mon, 24 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0000