posted 06-19-99 10:25 AM ET        

No final conclusion has been reached, and IMHO some aspects have yet to be fully exposed under the spotlight.

Many other experienced SMACers can surely give their contribution, some I didn't address coz they play in MASTOR, some other I hadn't yet the pleasure to discuss with in the forums, so I limited the panel to the original and best known to me CMNs. I apologize to the excluded ones, and invite them to bring their contribution in here now.

posted 06-19-99 10:30 AM ET            

Hi Ted.

If I got it right, you're a full-service CMN for MASTOR, aren't you?

Well, I apply for advice from the authority, for I might have commited an unfair action towards Brother Magnus.
Just to make it clear, it's not the matter of breaking or respecting agreements, that's his business to declare Vendetta if he doesn't like my behavior.

My doubt is that I might have taken advantage of a *double* loophole in diplomatic UI (I wouldn't speak of cheating yet, had I though of it, I'd have refrained).
Like I profited of a glitch in the game to "tie" the hands of my opponent.
The issue had been raised b4 amongst CMNs, and it was left w/out final conclusion, unofficially temporarily tolerated.

Main Point:
Use of "Auto-withdrawal" right-clicking on a commlink

Second Point: (loosely related)
-Treaty proposed to me, I just have to accept and it's deal (Truce now)
-I just close diplo window w/out accepting (for now)
-I take an action that automatically brings the computer to declare
Vendetta on behalf of an human faction.
-I click on the commlink that now reports Vendetta: it opens coz of ongoing
negotiation.
-I accept the Treaty NOW. No further negotiation needed, deal struck! I
broke a truce and signed Treaty in the same turn, the opponent was just a
spectator.
-Icing on the cake, with treaty in effect, I can now ask and obtain
"auto-withdrawal"!

******** WARNING: DETAILS OF MASTOR CHALLENGE ********
Here's the real story:
#my turn
-I spot a Magnus Foil
-Don't want to restrain my expansion with Hive, so I don't call him
-I see now that my colony pod stands already in his territory
-the current tile is not best for a base
-I decide to take a risk and go 1 tile further iside his border
-hard luck: it meets his disciplined scout patrol
-fearing he could attack me and kill my precious pod, I call him
-I don't offer treaty yet, but share my map (not vast, hehe) promising to retire if he spares my life
#his turn
-he steps back with the scout!
-he offers treaty AND hits "Accept" in advance! That's his choice and HIS problem, methinks, nothing agreed in advance!
#my turn again
-I just close diplo window with his counter-offer, touching nothing
-now that his scout is no more adjacent, I build the base, trusting for the new base bonus to have a patrol next turn, and hoping he hasn't rovers in range.
-The *computer* says PK would declare Vendetta if I build there (Magnus knows nothing by now, first glitch)
-I go on, PKs declare Vendetta. That's not unfair after all, probably Magnus would have done the same
-NOW I reopen the diplo window SAME as I left it!
-I hit "Accept", and it's "DEAL COMPLETE"!!! Now Magnus is bound by a Treaty (second glitch, combined with first). Ruthlessly, I pretend I hit the wrong key and ask him to forgive me...
-Finally I right-click on his "Treaty" commlink, and "Demand Withdrawal".
The scout which had to be 2 tiles away from the new base, is forced to retire from what is now MY land.
*********************************

Now, I have some doubts telling where's the line dividing:
1-ruthless but legal behaviour, he can take his revenge if he wants.
2-unfair or immoral conduct, maybe to blame but yet not formally prohibited
3-definitely cheating, not to be admitted or tolerated in a PBEM

I claim I didn't 3, but I suspect I may have overstepped the mark between 1 & 2.
You must consider though that he, carelessly and wrongly trusting my word, offered his soft throat to my stab, hitting "Accept" in advance and retiring his scout. Taking your word back is part of the diplomacy and perfectly legal game practice, nothing to do with cheating!
Please, do not superficially blame me, since I've brought myself the issue to your attention, as I'm a CMN too, and the matter was never agreed upon b4. I think it's worth to analyze the concept in itself, apart of this singular case.
I would even ask you not to inform Magnus yet, I repute that an important element of evaluation is how Magnus perceives and reacts to my action, so let him take his turn first and look at what he does, if he appeals to the court or not.

I decided not to stop the game, coz when I did realize the problem, I already took the action, didn't want to reload and didn't want to waste other player's time.

An integration to PBEM agreed rules is desirable on this subject.

truly yours

MariOne
aka
CMN Ace

-----------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 19:06:13
From: "Aredhran"
To: "tfs99", MoSe
Cc: cousLee, "GoobMeister", Bingmann

Mario,

In my opinion,

a) Too bad for Magnus if he was too trustful, and now has one of your bases in the middle of his land. You are correct he shouldn't have let all his defenses down.
After all, as you said, the proverbial dagger in the back is full part of game diplomacy.

BUT

b) You took advantage of the loophole and had the treaty afterwards, and I think that's an unfair act... Maybe not "cheating" since it was not stated in the rules to begin with, but still you should not have been able to do the "withdraw" trick to him.
Definitely point #2 in your list.

To be fair, you should now be in a state of Vendetta with him, not treaty, and you should still have that scout patrol one square away from your base.
I think we all agrees there are glitches to the PBEM approach, really we can feel it's been added as an afterthought (altough to the best of the Firaxians ability, no doubt).

It does not belong to me to take a decision here, since I'm not involved in this game, but I sure think this should be prohibited in future challenges.
I'll update the rules to that effect (when I have time ).

Aredhran

------------------------------
Recd: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 19:54:06 +0200 (MET DST)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 10:59:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: cousLee
To: MoSe, tfs99@,
Cc: aredhran, Goob, Bingmann

I see no problem. It was a grevious error to click accept during open negotiations.
If you had agreed on freezing borders beforehand, that would be one thing (actually, no it wouldn't). You took advantage of another player's error. I see no violation.
If you want to bring this to the CMN court for a determination, I am willing to either sit on the CMN panel, or represent your defence (nothing has appeared in court before, so procedures are still being established). The only instance that should have gone to court, was handled "out-of-court" so no precenedce was set. In my own mind, the CMN panel should consist of the game CMN, and 2 other CMNs. And each party can either represent themselves, or be represented by a CMN.
If the other player wishes to declare vendetta, you should be the one to do so. His reputation should not be the one thats tainted. If you had accepted the treaty in the begining, then built a base in his terr, a Vendetta would be in place and not a truce/treaty.
As for the scout that got shipped, well that makes it a little more sticky. It appears in your deposition, you knowingly used the tactic just to remove the unit from your new terr. However, in war time, many fierce battles took place on the same day as the treaty signing. You could have easily destroyed the scout (if your colony pod was escorted) and done the same diplomatic tactics.

My recommendations:
1> Ask the other player if he wishes vendetta. If yes, you declare it, not the other player.
2> If any other penalty should be imposed, the new base should be disbanded to restore the original borders. The new base scout should be disbanded to hurry the colony pod production. The area around the base should be considered a neutral buffer zone until the original border is restored. (this only if a border freeze was previously agreed on)
3> It should be re-iterated the danger of clicking accept in negotiations. One must always be wary of the potential of being double-crossed.

great topic.

CMN cousLee

------------------------------
Recd: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 20:04:49 +0200 (MET DST)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 13:59:31 -0400
From: Bingmann
To: moSe, tfs99
Cc: aredhran, cousLee62, Goob

First, auto-withdrawal vs. human players needs some sort of rule so that the offending player has a chance to break the treaty to avoid the auto-withdrawal.
My proposal is that a 1 turn warning must be given to human players before auto-withdrawal is used. This allows the intruder to break the treaty (getting the stained reputation) and keep the offending unit where it is.

Second, if an event occurs that degrades relations between 2 factions to vendetta, at least one of the players will want to change or retract any diplomatic offerings that they have approved but have not yet been accepted by the other faction.
My proposal is that if an event occurs that causes a vendetta when there wasn't one before, any ongoing negotiations should immediately be cancelled.
cousLee, this is the only way to get the reputation "stain" on the proper faction without the roundabout method of declaring vendetta if the other faction wants you to declare vendetta. The first person who clicks "accept" is always in this position.
This situation could have easily gone the other way with Magnus "proposing" a treaty, MoSe "accepting" the treaty, Magnus killing the colony pod, then Magnus "accepting" the treaty.

It's just easier if it's understood that if a vendetta occurs, then any negotiations in progress are cancelled.

Bingmann

-------------------------------
Recd: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 20:38:00 +0200 (MET DST)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 11:42:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: cousLee
To: bingmann
Cc: MoSe, tfs99, Aredhran

1 turn warning: I completely disagree. If one is planning a back stab, it is senseless to tip one's hand a turn before.
Cancellation of any on going negotiations: I completely agree.

For future instances, thats fine. BUT, this is in regards to an action that has already transpired. The only way to correctly apply the reputation damage is the "round-about way" I proposed in this instance.

Accepting the treaty on the other shoe, and then killing the colony pod, would result in reputation damage being applied correctly, and a state on vendetta would exist on the other players next turn.
This is not the case here. He could have killed the scout, instead of sending it packing.

We must refrain from applying what-ifs in this paticular case. Setting rules for future instances is important, but a seperate issue none the less.

-------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 21:22:03 +0200
From: Mose
To: tfs99, Bingmann, aredhran, cousLee62, Goob

I'ts good to be honest, but it seems I always have to take back what I do!
I took the honey, there goes the swarm.
What if Magnus doesn't protest?
Will I have to be punished as well, the offended unaware?
I'll have to ask my sister, and her husband and his father, they're all lawyers...
There's lot to say more, but now I HAVE A TURN TO PLAY, will you excuse me
<nods and exits>

-------------------------------
Recd: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 22:00:00 +0200 (MET DST)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 15:54:36 -0400
To: cousLee
From: Bingmann
Cc: MoSe, tfs99, Aredhran

cousLee,

Yes, my proposals were for the future and were meant to make multiplayer diplomacy work more like single player diplomacy.

The 1 turn warning on treaty withdrawal allows the offender to choose between withdrawing or renouncing the treaty, just like single player.
Otherwise, in multiplayer there is no choice - the offender must withdraw on the whim of the victim. Not such a big deal unless the "victim" has just done something to change the borders and orders a withdrawal before the "offender" has a chance to react to the new situation.

My counter-example was just to show that the situation could just as easily have gone the other way. Someone has to be the first to "accept" a treaty. The other player can then commit all sorts of mischief during their turn before also "accepting" the treaty. It seems reasonable to me to assume that if you do something bad to the other player, then any open negociations would be withdrawn.

As for the situation at hand, I agree with your solution.
MoSe should declare vendetta if that's what Magnus wants.

Bingmann

------------------------------
Recd: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 00:03:31 +0200 (MET DST)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 15:01:58 -0700
From: Goob
To: MoSe
Cc: tfs99, aredhran, cousLee, Bingmann

I am putting my $.02 in a little late on this, but it did give me the opportunity to read your excellent responses.

Mario showed good diplomatic form, ie. he lied himself into an advantage ;-). He may not have set out to lie, but he did in the end. Good for him.
Magnus showed more trust than was warranted and paid for it. His payment is solely that there is an opposing city on terrain that once was in his lands, his scout has been removed from the area, and he is now treatied with the benefactor of his situation. (Three cheers Mario!)

1) If Magnus wanted to make sure that there was no city there, he either stays where he is, or takes out the colony pod. Retreating is a signal that Mario is free to take the land if he has the 'cojones'.

2) If Magnus was not seeking a truce he would not have hit accept.

Magnus put himself in a situation where he gave up control. He had his scout next to a colony pod on his turn. He had the power and the control.
He then pulled out his Impact rifle, offered it to Mario, and removed his silksteel armor. He did everything except pull the trigger.

In my eyes Mario has no fault here.

Mario was ruthless and back-stabbing. No Magnus most likely did not mean for this to happen to himself, but if he had behaved in any other manner he would not be in the situation that he is now presented with.

Furthermore, I fell that if he desires to have a state of Vendetta at this point the full onus should be on him. He was totally out-maneuvered, and I am sure we could find a real life situation where one side had been manuevered into declaring war to recover from a badly blundered diplomatic endeavor.

Magnus has already learned one of the best lessons of MP game play. I am sure that when I make a similar mistake somebody will happily teach me my Multiplayer manners.

Goob

--------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 00:08:50 +0200
From: MoSe
To: Goob
Cc: tfs99, aredhran, cousLee, Bingmann

I hereby appoint Goob as my CMN defender!
Nevertheless, I must admit that...

"NONONONO! SHUTUP! don't say one more single word! Gentlemen, my client is spotless. I don't see the point of this suit! We will see you tomorrow in the court room"

Hah, goo...

"Shush! Goodbye, detectives"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (next e-mail, same header, 10 minutes after)

Of course, having Goob on my side, allows me to have benevolent CMN cousLee in the panel... hehe

---------------------------------
Recd: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 00:59:50 +0200 (MET DST)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 18:54:41 -0400
From: Bingmann
To: Goob, MoSe
Cc: tfs99, aredhran, cousLee

Goob changed my mind. I'm now in the "cut-throat" group of CMNs.

I think something should only be considered a cheat or a loophole if the results are contrary to reasonable expectations of how the game is supposed to work.
Examples include being able to upgrade and attack on the same turn (rules indicate that upgrading a unit should use up all of its moves) and pact-prober being able to choose "ignore action" for the probee (the probee should decide whether to ignore or vendetta, not the prober.)

In the MoSe/Magnus case, Mario's sequence of actions was not unpredictable. Magnus should have known that MoSe could build the base before accepting the treaty, then accept the treaty, and finally expel the treaty troops from the new territory. He might not have thought of it at the time, but there was no reason for him to think that it would not be possible. My opinion is that this is a simple case of diplomatic outmaneuvering and treachery.

Bingmann

----------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 01:15:08 +0200
From: MoSe
To: Goob, Bingmann
Cc: tfs99, aredhran, cousLee

WOW!
Goob was my White Knight, but I still felt guilty in the depth of my ego.
Now Bingmann helped me to rinse my conscience, bright clean.

Let's wait now what the still unaware Magnus is going to say.

My current Pactees don't worry: I don't sign treaties and then backstab, I hide the cake b4 we part it! ;-)

----------------------------------
Recd: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 18:13:54 +0200 (MET DST)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 17:34:52 +0200
From: Aredhran
To: MoSe, Goob, Bingmann
Cc: tfs99@, cousLee6

Well, I'll just be the black spot in your conscience, then...

I still hold to my points made in a previous mail. In short, Magnus was an idiot to let his defenses down, but you shouldn't have accepted the treaty

I'll wait his reaction, because that's what really matters.

Aredhran

-----------------------------------
Recd: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 18:52:17 +0200 (MET DST)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 09:50:40 -0700
From: Goob
To: Aredhran
Cc: MoSe Bingmann, tfs99, cousLee

My friend, I will agree I would never want to be treated the way that Good Mario treated poor Magnus, that unfortunately will weigh upon Mario's soul, (or not).
If the matter being brought to the attention of the CMN panel though is did Mario cheat, then I must say no.

I would not want the game interface to change so that I must decide on a incoming diplomatic mission before I look at the situation on my map, and if I am able to look at the situation then I will be able to make changes to it.

The only acceptable alternative could be that if any changes on the game map affect the player who had accepted their offering before hand then the status would immediately switch to negotiating instead of accept. My assumption is that this minor change would actually be a large code rewrite, I may be wrong though.

The only harm from Mario accepting the treaty is that Magnus must now impugn his good name in order to declare Vendetta. Unfair? Yes. Ruthless? Yes.
The situation though is still based upon Magnus' mistake of clicking accept. Mario does not seem to be too interested in having a state of Treaty, or he would not have acted the way he did, but the results of his accepting the treaty do not justify imposed sanctions.

If the Opponent Engine in SMAC had behaved this way we all would be chortling in delight (except for Magnus), How Clever, How Devious...

Mario played smart (at least in the short term), Magnus played poorly and thus the situation seems unfair, but it is only unfair because someone played with more skill than the other. Mario did not take unreasonable advantage of the existing rules.

I honestly would probably not have thought of doing what Mario did, but I whole heartedly support his right to play ruthlessly, except in Aredhran's challenge and micje's challenge of course. ;-)

Goob
-This discussion is some much more fun than setting up Win 95 machines at work.

-------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 21:02:37 +0200
From: MoSe
To: Aredhran

You kow what? I really agree with you. But let's keep it between us for now.
I was so surprised two CMN taking totally my side, I didn't want to yell "No! I WANT to be punished".
Actually, it's more double faced than it seems, even the most logical "denial" approach hides relevant cons (NOT to be read in french!) in it.
I said too, Magnus reaction is most important, not to save my ass if he's unaware: on the contrary, that would be a very negative reaction, in terms of game soundness! It would prove I could trick him not being spotted, and that's bad, would be enough to ban the practice. Alas, no other remedy can be found, but throwing away the baby along with the bath water.

In the best meta-schyzo-freak tradition, I'll detach then (only then) my astral projection from my body and observe my past deeds from a totally impartial PoV, as if I was a different person; CMN Ace will judge MoSe the player.

now I dunno how to sign...

-------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 13:05:55 +0200
From: MoSe
To: Magnus
Cc: tfs99
Subject: MASTOR: new rules issue with our Treaty

Hi Magnus.

I have to inform you the the way I conducted the signature of our treaty has raised a new "cheating" issue.
I realized after I moved that I took possibly advantage of a loophole in PBEM diplomacy.
The way I behaved, we should be in Vendetta (caused by my fault), not treaty.
I submitted at once the issue to a panel of CMNs, but we waited for your reaction to better define the extent of the problem.
You didn't react at all! The bad thing is, you couldn't realize I've caused Vendetta and THEN accepted the pre-signed treaty (well, if you think to the game rules & going, you could have deduced it by the placement of my new base...).

I'm going to report all the e-mail CMN debate in a thread on SMAC MP Forum.
I invite you to read the details there b4 contacting me, and be patient, that will require some work and time to be done.

Of course you could have decided as well to reinstate the treaty, out of your benevolence (or hidden interest...)

Two conclusions must be reached:
-specific: if and which sanctions should eventually be applied to me in MASTOR
-general: how to handle this issue in the future, i.e. define a rule.

Don't take it bad, magnus
Holding iontegrity as a principle (nevertheless...)
Sensei Monadik

*********************************************
Topic: CMNs, and the players who love them.

Related excerpts

Aredhran posted 06-18-99 07:07 AM ET
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cousLee, I like your summary of the rules. I would like to see added something with the issue we discussed over the MoSe/Magnus case.
When there is ongoing diplomacy but an action is taken that would degrade relationship to Vendetta (direct attack, probing, base building in enemy territory, etc), the trade must be suspended until the offended player has had a chance to review the changes. That is, it's illegal for the attacker to press the Accept button until the following turn.

Not really a cheat, I agree, but still something that ought to be mentioned.

Aredhran

Bingmann posted 06-18-99 09:14 AM ET
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...
Aredhran- Players can easily avoid on their own the issue you are trying to address with a rule. Just don't "pre-approve" a treaty/pact with another faction when that faction is poised to do something nasty to you.

Aredhran posted 06-18-99 09:43 AM ET
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bingmann, I know that. But having things written down can prevent trouble later. And you'll agree that most of us wouldn't do that anyway. Remember that the "rules" are for everyone, not only experienced multiplayer gamers.
Aredhran

cousLee posted 06-18-99 08:54 PM ET
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...
"Just don't "pre-approve" a treaty/pact with another faction when that faction is poised to do something nasty to you."
Someone has to click accept first, and in good faith the the other faction is not going to do something that causes declare vendetta on that turn.

cousLee posted 06-18-99 08:58 PM ET
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE:
RULES
Cheats (not allowed):
...
A5> If a player employs a tactic that causes a state of vendetta, They are not allowed to "accept" a pending diplomatic agreement with that faction.

MoSe posted 06-19-99 06:51 AM ET
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...
I was the first (known to me) perpetrator, but at the same time I was the one to bring immeditaly the issue to the attention of the CMN of the challenge and to a sort of CMN council.

It was kept private, coz the reaction of the offended was awaited b4 taking any decision or even warning him: like a test, since it was the first case.
...
...reporting the lively interchange of E-mails that occurred.
There, the earnest reproach was of unfair behavior, but none said cheating, some took even my part and praised my ruthless cunning (they're all CMNs!). Now I see I ended in the cheater section...
BTW, the offended proposed a further tech trade, not making the least mention of the affair! That's the bad thing, opposite as you would think: the offended didn't even realize we passed thru a state of vendetta b4 signing the treaty! Thus, some safeguards must be enforced.

posted 06-27-99 12:28 AM ET            

Anyway, I feel the lesson learned about diplomacy was well worth what happened to me. I had never been in diplomatic contact with anyone before so I really had no idea what to do (other than be peaceful).

All's fair in love & war (as they say)

I'll keep the treaty and consider myself duely warned about Mario's SPECIAL tactics *watches his back*

posted 06-28-99 02:32 AM ET            

Mario's actions in no way depict cheating.

Mario, if you as an individual want to clean "your record" as a player and assuage your consience, fine do so and offer recompense to Magnus.
The issue is still one of guile and cunning vs. naivety. That is not cheating. It is rutlessness.

I will once again state that I doubt I would play that choice myself, though more from opportunity unnoticed than from pure benevolence. I shudder to think of that happening to me, especially since I grew up in New York City, and I am a former (maybe future) Diplomacy player (so is Mario by the way...), but if I did have this act inflicted on me in a game then I would have to congratulate the employer and not condemn him.

How many current and near future players will hit accept first when dealing with Mario? This is the only sanction that he merits. And if the letters were not published and Magnus had not noticed the misplay then Mario would have gotten by free of charge.

One other change that may be fair is that a message appear on the offended parties screen that a state of Vendetta did exist, was caused prior to the current treaty.

Thus fair warning would be there.

I just don't see anything in the game mechanics to suggest that this should be cheating.

posted 06-28-99 02:32 AM ET            

Mario's actions in no way depict cheating.

Mario, if you as an individual want to clean "your record" as a player and assuage your consience, fine do so and offer recompense to Magnus.
The issue is still one of guile and cunning vs. naivety. That is not cheating. It is rutlessness.

I will once again state that I doubt I would play that choice myself, though more from opportunity unnoticed than from pure benevolence. I shudder to think of that happening to me, especially since I grew up in New York City, and I am a former (maybe future) Diplomacy player (so is Mario by the way...), but if I did have this act inflicted on me in a game then I would have to congratulate the employer and not condemn him.

How many current and near future players will hit accept first when dealing with Mario? This is the only sanction that he merits. And if the letters were not published and Magnus had not noticed the misplay then Mario would have gotten by free of charge.

One other change that may be fair is that a message appear on the offended parties screen that a state of Vendetta did exist, was caused prior to the current treaty.

Thus fair warning would be there.

I just don't see anything in the game mechanics to suggest that this should be cheating.