🚀 go-pugleaf

> From: Daniel LOEB <loeb@FR.GRECO-PROG>

> In article <1993Jan23.092829.19032@fuug.fi> someone anonymously write:
> >There is a certain player, X, who is involved in multiple games; this
> >player threatens to turn on player Y in one game, B, if player Y
> >doesn't do what player X wants in another game, A.

   I don't believe that *carrying out* such threats are...
are part of playing Diplomacy in
the spirit in which the game should be played.  But it was bound to happen
sooner or later.

   Note my choice of words: "carrying out".  Is it against the spirit of the
game to *make* the threat?  The player may have no intention of carrying out
the threat, but it may make it.

   Although I disprove of the threat I would say that provided
the threat isn't carried out then it's just about legalish.  The legal/non-legal
waters are rather muddy here.

> Now, let me look at the EP house rules for relevant passages:
>
> A - "If two or more people are known to be automatic enemies or
> automatic allies, they may not be allowed to play in the same game."

This is not worded very well.  Note the use of the word "may" which means
that in some circumstances they will be allowed to play in the same game.

> B - "You are allowed to bribe other players, but you are not allowed
> to threaten or injure them except for the threat to not ally with
> them in future games. "

   This means that the above threat is illegal under the EP houserules.

> These two passages seem somewhat contradictatory.
> In my mind, many non-physical threats should be allowed even when
> their execution would be illegal.
>
> Personally, I think that it is legal to use knowlege of your opponent. Eg:
> (1) Defend yourself against someone who has a vendetta against you.
> (2) Take the word of a known lier with a grain of salt.
> (3) Intentionally spread rumors through a known gossiper.
> (4) Explain a strategy in greater detail to a novice.
> (5) Use a clever attack with convoys against someone who had admitted
> not really knowing much about convoys.
> (6) Refuse to send material unfit for public consumption to a known
> gossiper.

   I agree.

> >I think this sort of behavior is absolutely improper and
> >reprehensible.  I am especially disturbed since player X is now
> >actually moderating a game.
>
> It should be completely out of the question that someone should even
> allude to using his GM position in one game to affect his result in
> another game. Any thing similar to that should result in the person
> being barred as the GM of an EP game.

  I agree, but the player concerned has not made that threat has he?

Mark.