From: loeb@greco-prog.fr (Daniel LOEB)
Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
Subject: Re: Improper Behavior
Date: 27 Jan 93 13:49:17 GMT
Reply-To: loeb@geocub.UUCP (Daniel LOEB)
Organization: Greco Programmation du CNRS

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.

This must be a very delicate situation for you are obviously being
careful to not not reveal yourself. I would recommend however that you
or your gamemaster contact the Electronic Protocol Coordinating
Council along with the pertinant information so that they can make a
decision. In the meantime they'll respect your privacy, but they 
need to know who you are to take your request seriously.
(If members of the EPCC are involved in the story, our secretary will
not include them in the discussion. If our secretary is involved, you
should contact any other member of EPCC (including myself) and he will
be acting-secretary for the affair.)

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."

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. "

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. 

However, it should not be legal to automatically ally or attack
another player in every game you are in together.

I think that A should be strengthened quite a bit, and explicitly deal
with threatened vedettas. 

>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 had always thought that each game is a separate universe.  Now maybe
>you can learn from experience that so-and-so is untrustworthy or a
>chronically bad tactician or whatever, but I think it is totally
>unfair to use this "cross-game" diplomacy.

I agree with these last comments.



-- 

Yours, Daniel Loeb				loeb@geocub.greco-prog.fr
HOME 	150, cours Victor-Hugo; Appt D45; 33000 Bordeaux France
WORK	LABRI; Universite de Bordeaux I; 33405 Talence Cedex France
Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy,news.answers