Spying rule

[MrWhereItsAt]

What the bollocks are you doing Tass? Rule violation? The only rules I found refer to exploits and how long each team can play for. I was chatting with a Hive member. A shrewd one too. We exchanged limited amounts of information, which is what people tend to do in useful diplomatic discussions. There was no military information or specifics exchanged (what is against the rules about that anyway?), we merely shared our views on our respective teams and their relations to each other, in the hope of improving said relations.

You have about 14 hours to put my post back and reopen that thread, or I will do so myself. Don't be an idiot. There is no rule that even approaches restricting faction members from chatting about ANYTHING, and I challenge you to show me otherwise.

Don't be psycho. Reverse your actions and we'll forget this. I don't want any more annoyance in this game than we have all had already. Please sort this out.

[laurentius]

I second WIA, nothing illegal has happened. My theory is: Either tass is; A) not serious OR B) too bored with acdg and wants some action

[DeathByTheSword]

damn WIA...why so hostile?

[laurentius]

Tass is the one who is being hostile here. Actually WIA why being so soft on him?

[Illuminatus]

What actually happened? Is exchanging information in chat channels against rules? What has MWIA actually posted about?

[GeoModder]

Well, that is the problem, Tass edited the results of that chat, or the posting of MWIA of that chat log, so we don't know.

[Drogue]

Re: Thread closed? You have no right.

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
There was no military information or specifics exchanged (what is against the rules about that anyway?), we merely shared our views on our respective teams and their relations to each other, in the hope of improving said relations.

While it would depend on the specifics, if that is the case, it would be legal. However, as CMN, Tass has a duty to investigate anything that may cross over the rules. Therefore, closing your thread and removing the chat log so that it does not affect others is prudent, until he has decided whether or not it contravenes the rules.

The bottom line is, there is a rule about it, and it is up to Tass what he believes is the difference between an informal chat about diplomacy and giving information that should not be, or trying to gain information by underhand means.

Tass said as his comment in that thread that the log has been removed until he makes his decision, as to whether or not it is against the rules. If he decides it is, it remains removed. If he decides it isn't, it will be replaced. From what I've heard, I think it is legal, and I am strongly against that rule anyway, but nevertheless, it is a rule, and we must abide by it. Not only does he have a right to closed a thread he feels breaks the rules, he has a duty to do as such, until a ruling is made, so as to avoid any more improprieties, should they occur.

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
What the bollocks are you doing Tass? Rule violation?

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
There is no rule that even approaches restricting faction members from chatting about ANYTHING, and I challenge you to show me otherwise.

Sadly that isn't true. While personally I am against the rule, it was voted that getting information in informal chats was against the rules, since it could be manipulated. I think it's all part and parcel of diplomacy personally, but the people voted to ban it.

Furthermore, Voltaire, as Chairman of The Hive, has asked that there be no diplomacy whatsoever other than between their official ambassador and the CPU, because of various incidents that have happened with the hive, such as the Jamski and Enigma ones. We did agree to those terms, as a courtesy.

I would ask that Tass post a link in the rules thread to the poll in question, to make clear that it is being enforced.

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
Don't be psycho. Reverse your actions and we'll forget this. I don't want any more annoyance in this game than we have all had already. Please sort this out.

He is sorting it out. I know you were not aware of the rule, but there is a rule there. I disagree with it, I think it's a stupid ruling, but it is a ruling, and Tass has a duty to investigate it if he feels it is borderline.

Meanwhile, please do not post it again until Tass has decided if it is legal or not.

Tass: I presume any similar thread by Arnelos has been removed from the Hive forum, should it have been made. Also, could you give us a rough idea of timescale? How long do you think until you make a decision on whether or not it's allowed.

[Nubclear]

Thing is: I've already made my ruling, which has been told to both parties.
I would like it to be accepted.

[Nubclear]

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=105360

[Drogue]

Tass, there is one gaping problem with that poll: it doesn't define spying.

The winning option was:

YES, I do believe the action described in the post is SPYING and NO, I DO NOT believe that previous spies should be PARDONED.

Yet there is no action described in that post. Indeed, you went as far as to say:

However the term spying has not been defined specifically enough in order to make a determinite ruling.

You also said:

The purpose of this poll is to see whether this type of action is considered spying

Yet it was not. The poll decided if that action should be spying, with no mention of what that action was. You have never told us what you consider spying.

Moreover, if you have made your ruling, please remove the comment in the thread you closed saying that you are considering your ruling.

[laurentius]

Edited.

[Illuminatus]

Hmm, seems we already know it.

[Nubclear]

Drogue: Spying is..."once-loyal faction members now giving factional information to foreign factions.", of course, without approval from the faction.

[Drogue]

I have a couple of points then. Would you call either MWIA or Arnelos a non longer loyal faction member? Also, this would mean a member playing and posting the turn, while offering a diplomacy deal that had not been cleared by the rest of the faction. Hoever the latter was ruled as an allowable rogue member, by Googlie. Or does this just apply to out of game diplomacy, not in game? That would seem sensible. However I would question that what Arnelos and MWIA did anything against their own factions.

[Nubclear]

Fair enough, though I doubt one of the factions involved would have wanted this to happen
I don't see why this is an issue anymore though. I ruled, before this thread was created, that all they would get was a slap on the wrist.