Deceit in PBEM games
 

Is it allowed to lie, deceit, betray or troll in PBEM diplomacy? For example, imagine in DDPP I give Kemal an e-mail where I state that ProPain is planning an attack on him. (This is pure hypothetically!)

If not, is it allowed to bend certain quotes, using them to your advantage to get other civs on your side? (Like what I (in this case unintentionally) did in the recent declaration of war in the ISDG, and which is also the reason I start this thread.)

Finally, Aggie has made certain rules for his games and a lot of people have used that as well. But one of the things that I find most peculiar is that breaking a treaty is disallowed. That would mean reputations are non-existant in PBEM's. Besides, in DDPP I almost declared war on Kemal, of which it's not clear whether I actually broke a treaty or not.

What's the limit?

Your thoughts please. :)

My thoughts.

I recently heard about what a "peace treaty" at CDZ means, and I find it OK, though I'd like to hear more opinions on that. I saw Aggie include that in his ruleset, and I also included it in mine. So I'd like people to express their opinions, so that I can know if I was inspired when I chose that rule. It's true that reputation would be somewhat black or white that way, but Civ3 is far from being perfect, so you gotta simplify it a little so that it works fine.

As for ISDG, no flame war, we already stated so much in the other thread. To put it short : CDZ did nothing wrong. At least that is my opinion. :)

Hmm. the line is there, but it is hard to describe.

For example, in my Pbems versus Erikk and Beam we agreed a peace treaty till the Industrial age (or even later). Now, if I or one of them sneak attack before the end of the treaty that is not good IMHO. First, due to the type of game civ is, such a sneak attack would mean utter ruin for most victims. If two nations border, Knights (not to mention Cav...) can easily take a vast area. game over.
Second, it would also make treaties between us in the future very difficult.
OTOH, your example of telling Kemal that PP will strike soon is IMHO very much allowed! If you can break up an alliance by mere words, that are not backed by any in-game evidence, that is ok in my book. I think the Psychological factor in Pbem is important!

Bending quotes? No problem there either. If you tell PP Kemal told you he was going to attack PP (still with me?), you are faking a quote already.

Yes and No. Indeed the attitude here is that we stick by 99.9% of treaties (some even posted in the open thread!). This is especially true for 1on1's, where as said earlier a broken treaty is game over.

I don't think you can state any hard rules here.
In principle you can do anything, However, you should always be prepared on how the environment will react to it.

The outcome of "your actions in PBEM-games to other players + the reaction of the environment on those actions" ultimately is exactly what the concept of reputation consists of, or so I believe. :)

Note that for some players, deceit can actually raise your reputation with them, as they might think it would be a wise and just move for a player to betray someone at a certain stage of the game, whereas others players might feel exactly the opposite about it. There is no such thing as a 100% clean rep, I suppose.

Btw, about faking quotes etc, I really think that is very unwise and unwanted, since it is very easy to do, impossible to prove, and can see emotions flare sky-high (see the UN thread) and lead to massive damage to people's feelings. It is nice to win, but is it really that important? I'd even rather see someone cheat, than falsify MSN logs etc, to be honest. That's just a border one should not cross, imo.

I agree with all responses, specially Kemals. At CDZ we seem to have an unwritten and undiscussed common understanding what "fair" gameplay is and we all know that crossing that line will have repercussions, very severe ones in some cases. A lot comes down to understanding reputation in relation to gameplay, experienced gamers (not neccesarely experienced Civvers) understand that (or should).

Great feedback! :)

One issue though:
This is about where my problem lies: if you can't manipulate quotes, how can you confince someone of something that is not true?
Perhaps if you agree that any quoting of fellow players is disallowed one would at least not be that suspicious...?

To elaborate a bit further, for starters I too am totaly against manipulating MSN logs! Bending a quote is also subjective. Let's asume I am Erikk in the DDPP. Kemal tells me he is "preparing for war". This basicly means nothing. However now I go to PP and tell him enthausiasticly: "You better watch out! Kemal told me literaly he is 'preparing for war'". This is very much so allowed IMO, but it is also hard to achieve.
How often in a multiplayergame do you see people coming with "quotes" on paper? Not all that often (never?). I hate to think that telling a simple "I think he is going to attack you, he was so evasive on MSN the other day", will be held against me after the game as a LIE. In the end all parties will realise what has happened and yes, the lie will come out. I better also have told some truth or else next game swill be hard for me! So indeed rep caries along.

I think that actually, anything goes - excepting keeping to agreed rulesets and 'meta-cheating' (ie. reloading/hacking the save game/pw a la skyfish)

The thing is that in most pbem games treaties stick, and some people play rulesets that explicitly forbid treaty breaking. But unless you do have that agreed explicitly beforehand then it is allowed. By allowed I mean that (AFAIK, and I better be right!!) you would still be awarded the win (if it was adjudicated as a ladder game) - even if you were entirely dishonourable.

The fact that no-one ever seems to break treaties is just because they value their reputation over a win. If people really want cast-iron treaties they have to agree a ruleset that makes every treaty a 'game-breaker', ie. write into the treaty the fact that breaking it would forfeit the game.

all in imnsho, but as far as ladder games go I am right [:p]

as far as bending quotes etc... I think that kind of stuff is just about your reputation, and basic netiquette too maybe.

If in a multi-mp game you tell some porkies, well you better be dam good and not get caught!

I think much also has to do with the ladder here at CDZ, or more to say the "lack of" the ladder. I used to play other Online games where everything was for the ladder. Forum activity was 90% solving problems between players!
Perhaps more devious backstabbing is expectable when ranking is concerned...