Game Ethics Questions

[Grandpa Troll]

I been playing for awhile now, about a year PBEM and have found yet another game I suxor at

Ok

I was wondering how others felt about the following:

#1-Your fixing to be over run in a game, absolutely no chance to survive let alone win.

Do you think its ethical to disband cities?


#2-You are in a game and agree to be nice and not attack but first chance you get you:

Attack the person whom had given you a break by not wiping yer sorry arse out some turns earlier.

Is this ethical?

#3-You tell in so many words your gonna be an ally with someone but decide that your better suited to survive by taking your knife and sticking it deeply between you buddies shoulder blades.

Is this ethical?

#4-Your an ally with a person in a game and are helping them and then you find that your so called ally has been bogoerting (holding back) technology advance from you.

Is this ethical since your supposed to be watching each others back?

Let me know and I have some responses that we can comment on

Gramps

[Rhothaerill]

#1 Yes.
#2 No.
#3 No. Though in a formal democracy game you'd need a signed alliance. PBEMs are generally more relaxed.
#4 Questionable because the circumstances of tech sharing weren't explained in the example.

[Modo44]

Re: Game Ethics Questions

Originally posted by Grandpa Troll
#1-Your fixing to be over run in a game, absolutely no chance to survive let alone win.

Do you think its ethical to disband cities?

Yes, no problem, except if agreed otherwise before starting the game.

Originally posted by Grandpa Troll
#2-You are in a game and agree to be nice and not attack but first chance you get you:

Attack the person whom had given you a break by not wiping yer sorry arse out some turns earlier.

Is this ethical?

In a diplogame (i.e. roleplaying): You play as your civ would. If you are good people, you will not do it. If your leader is a crazy maniac, you can do this.
In a normal PBEM: Of course. You play to win, by whatever means.

Originally posted by Grandpa Troll
#3-You tell in so many words your gonna be an ally with someone but decide that your better suited to survive by taking your knife and sticking it deeply between you buddies shoulder blades.

Is this ethical?

In a diplogame (i.e. roleplaying): You play as your civ would. If you are good people, you will not do it. If your leader is a crazy maniac, you can do this.
In a normal PBEM: Any time it suits you. You play to win, by whatever means.

Originally posted by Grandpa Troll
#4-Your an ally with a person in a game and are helping them and then you find that your so called ally has been bogoerting (holding back) technology advance from you.

Is this ethical since your supposed to be watching each others back?

This has been done extensively throughout human history. This is diplomacy at work. Get used to... well... getting used.


As far as I know, all those acts have happened in human history in one fashion or another. Desperate and/or power-hungry leaders have been known to order worse things done...

Of course players will remember how you behave, so it is not like you can really get away with things they regard as unethical...

[Aqualung71]

Re: Game Ethics Questions

Gramps, I assume from the nature of this thread that you must have been on the receiving end of some of these deeds recently. Either that, or you're looking for moral validation before putting them into practice yourself

To your questions:

Originally posted by Grandpa Troll
#1-Your fixing to be over run in a game, absolutely no chance to survive let alone win.

Do you think its ethical to disband cities?

No. Though this is a tough one, since once a player starts to fall behind it is often no longer fun for them. The choice for the remaining players is either keep the reluctant player in the game (and thus reduce the turn rate to once a week since he or she is no longer interested), or allow the player to disband remaining cities (assuming their is a choice!). A better alternative is to find a replacement player - granted, quite difficult under such circumstances. Overall though, one player abandoning all their cities can unbalance the game.

#2-You are in a game and agree to be nice and not attack but first chance you get you:

Attack the person whom had given you a break by not wiping yer sorry arse out some turns earlier.

Is this ethical?

No. But it happens regularly and the possibility of your magnanimity and benevolence coming back to bite you should be factored into the original decision to not wipe out his sorry arse some turns earlier

#3-You tell in so many words your gonna be an ally with someone but decide that your better suited to survive by taking your knife and sticking it deeply between you buddies shoulder blades.

Is this ethical?

No. Players should be careful not to agree to alliances if they feel there may be a need to attack their ally while the alliance is still in force. Generally alliances should be negotiated for a set number of turns, then renegotiated. I generally favour a stepping down in relations rather than a sneak attack on turn 21 of a 20-turn alliance. For example, if you don't wish to extend the alliance, an agreed period of non-aggression would be the ethical thing to do, after which it's gloves off!

#4-Your an ally with a person in a game and are helping them and then you find that your so called ally has been bogoerting (holding back) technology advance from you.

Is this ethical since your supposed to be watching each others back?

Yes. Or rather, the premise is unrealistic. Specifically, tech-trading alliances are usually predicated on the value of the techs being exchanged. More valuable techs usually require cash top up, or multiple tech in exchange. Since different players research at different speeds due to a vast number of factors (empire size, population, extent of tiles improved, proximity of rivers and resources, happiness, economic and happiness based improvements, etc), it is unrealistic to expect the faster researchers to share their techs at the same pace as slower researchers. Therefore it is only natural for one player to move ahead of the other in technology. It is therefore perfectly acceptable to "hold back" techs from the ally, on the basis that the ally just can't afford to pay for the tech.

In other situations, I believe it is reasonable to hold back certain techs for strategic reasons (such as a resource or UU enabling tech, a government tech, a specifically useful optional tech such as Literature, etc).



In conclusion, while I believe the game should be played in a broadly ethical way, we are all out to win. And in the end, as the saying goes, there can be only one!

[Aqualung71]

Re: Re: Game Ethics Questions

Originally posted by Modo44
In a diplogame (i.e. roleplaying): You play as your civ would. If you are good people, you will not do it. If your leader is a crazy maniac, you can do this.

In a normal PBEM: Of course. You play to win, by whatever means.

In a normal PBEM: Any time it suits you. You play to win, by whatever means.

Thanks for the tip Modo.....I shall watch out for you

And speaking of diplogames, based on your attitude above, you wouldn't by chance happened to have joined Team Euphorica in the C3CDG would you?

[Modo44]

Originally posted by Aqualung71
Thanks for the tip Modo.....I shall watch out for you

Great. Another one to defend against right from turn 1.

Originally posted by Aqualung71
And speaking of diplogames, based on your attitude above, you wouldn't by chance happened to have joined Team Euphorica in the C3CDG would you?

You mean demogames, right? No, I did not join that game. Too fast a pace.

[Aqualung71]

Well a demogame is just a mighty diplogame.....isn't it?

[Modo44]

Originally posted by Aqualung71
Well a demogame is just a mighty diplogame.....isn't it?

From what I hear, not exactly. Demogames seem more like regular PBEMs (or SP games, you name it) with rolepleying added to the normal play. Diplogames, on the other hand, are based on roleplaying, with Civ being just the tool to do the building, trading, and war stuff. The distinction is quite big, I think.

[Aqualung71]

Originally posted by Modo44
No, I did not join that game. Too fast a pace.

Ah yes of course...you only play in slow games huh?

[Modo44]

Originally posted by Aqualung71
Ah yes of course...you only play in slow games huh?

That is not what I meant. The pace is too fast for a demogame. It is easy to respond quickly in a PBEM, where all I do is consult myself, while playing the save. If decisions need to be done by more than one person, half a day is nowhere near what it takes to make sense.

[ormuzd]

join us and you'll never need a half day to make a decision

[Krill]

Yeah, Modo, me and Ormuzd are the only members on our team, and we discuss things via chat, play the save via chat etc. Your time zone would fit in perfectly if you want to join.

---

#1-Your fixing to be over run in a game, absolutely no chance to survive let alone win.

Do you think its ethical to disband cities?

Depends. I would not disband cities just to leave the game, but if I was being attacked, I don't have any qualms about disbanding the city and retreating to a more defensible position.

#2-You are in a game and agree to be nice and not attack but first chance you get you attack the person whom had given you a break by not wiping yer sorry arse out some turns earlier.

Is this ethical?

Again depends. I probably would not do it unless I was in a tight spot, for example if our capitals could be only a few tiles apart I would not hesitate to pull the trigger.

#3-You tell in so many words your gonna be an ally with someone but decide that your better suited to survive by taking your knife and sticking it deeply between you buddies shoulder blades.

Is this ethical?

No, it is not ethical, but it is understandable. Play to win, and all that...

#4-Your an ally with a person in a game and are helping them and then you find that your so called ally has been bogoerting (holding back) technology advance from you.

Is this ethical since your supposed to be watching each others back?

Depends. It is not ethical to not be told your partner is holding tech back, however, but your partner may be hlding tech out to keep the tech cost high for your opponents etc.

[Aqualung71]

Originally posted by Krill
Depends. I would not disband cities just to leave the game, but if Iwas being attacked, I don't have any qualms about disbanding the city and retreating to a more defensible position.

Yes, good point Krill......there is a distinction. I also have disbanded cities as an unfortunate but sometimes necessary military strategy in order to buy time to regroup defensive forces and delay my enemy's advance.

[ormuzd]

I would never break a promise I have made
I know it is stupid to stay "never" but at least I try and I have never done it so far. That's why I hate these thigs so much. Winning is good, trust, respect and enjoyment are everything

[Dauphin]

Ethics are irrelevant in my humble opinion. I wouldn't do things because reputation carries over from other games into new ones. If you are untrustworthy you are only screwing yourself.

A classic example would be ROP rape. I wouldn't do it, because do it once and you'll never get anyone to give you ROP again.