Mendicant Cheating

[Zakilevo]

Why don't you get these 'minions' yourself as well? He has more BM friends than most people it seems. Why can't you bring more people to do what you want? ;)

[Wolfsong]

That's just it. If it's truly not cheating by magistrate and GM standards, what's stopping more people from doing it, aside from their own personal morals?

[Tom]

Well, the point I'm trying to make is this:

1. Multiple accounts = cheating, if you log into each one.
2. Multiple accounts = not cheating, if you have someone else log into each other account.

This is the point where I am leaving the discussion because we are deep in the theoretical, hypothetical, "what if", and the only "what if" that I care about anymore is http://what-if.xkcd.com/


It is cheating to have more than one account per person. Having one account per person is not cheating, even if those persons *gasp* know each other or *oh my god!* actually talk to each other sometimes.

[Wolfsong]

Kk.

Stand back, I'm going to try science.

[Geronus]

This is wrong.

So you're saying it would not be forbidden for a realm to do its orders via e-mail instead of IG messages? Have elections on SurvekyMonkey maybe?

As others have stated or implied, most of the OOC things that people would object to would actually end up falling under other aspects of the IRs or Social Contract. The Golden Rule still applies: I know wrong behavior when I see it. Not every instance of OOC communication is breaking the Rules, but some most certainly would be depending on the circumstances. If you're looking for an "All OOC communications are wrong under all circumstances," you're not going to get it. Tom's position seems to be pretty easy to grasp: We're not going to outlaw OOC communication because a) it's going to happen anyway, b) we have no way to prove it did or otherwise monitor it, and c) most abuses that might result would fall under other Rules and can be punished if things get to that point.

[Anaris]

1. Making 10 accounts, logging into each one and setting movement to a particular region despite having no orders to do so. Purposefully inciting a war with an ally to destroy the realm you're in.

2. Getting 10 friends to make accounts, and telling them via email to set movement to a particular region despite having no IC orders to do so. Purposefully inciting a war with an ally to destroy the realm you're in.

Please read the posts that have already come in the thread before making the same damn arguments again.

But in all of those scenarios, there's an important random factor that you're not considering:

All those OOC friends you recruited to the game have the free choice to not follow your orders blindly.

I have actually, personally, seen at least one case where someone recruited OOC friends into the game to prop him up when it looked like he was going to be losing support and/or power—but one or more of them, upon joining, found that not only did they like the game, and not only was the job of propping up the OOC friend a bit harder than he may have made out, but they actually didn't want to prop him up once they knew the situation in-game.

In general, though, you're absolutely right: People who are willing, and whose ethics (or lack thereof) will permit them, to push the rules to their absolute limits—or break them in ways that are highly ambiguous and/or easy to hide from those in authority—will gain an advantage over those who are not.

This is true in just about any situation I can imagine. If you can come up with a realistic way to prevent it, then I suggest you start publicizing it widely, because you'll be a shoe-in for the next religious prophet or Nobel Peace Prize winner.

[Scarlett]

Much like stupid facebook posts, the problem here is that it costs relatively little to be annoying. Sure it takes time with VPNs or proxies but plenty of people have time.

If I had this problem, I'd charge 10 bucks a year to play BM. That barely covers the cost of a merchant services account, transaction fees, and the hassle of dealing with taxes and reporting. But it gives you something a lot more valuable than $10 * players: billing addresses and credit cards (last 4 only since you don't want to actually store the numbers). Lots of people have multiple cards but not multiple billing addresses. You don't even forbid it - you just check on it, because there are valid reasons why people share cards just like there are valid reasons why people share IPs.

This is by no means the only solution and you wouldn't even have to charge anything - you could just validate the card, but then you're out of pocket for the merchant services account and cost of doing so.

[Vellos]

Nobody here is talking about the instance of a friend dropping a friendly text seeing of they're going to be involved in an upcoming battle. I'm on the forum– clearly no objection to OOC communication here.

Clearly we're talking about where e-mails, or IRC, or text messages, or whatever, but a situation where those messages are used instead of IC conduits. The discussion began with someone giving a series of questionable behaviors. Tim stated that it was fine to send orders OOG: I never anywhere stated that OOC communication was evil. But "sending orders OOG" has an obvious meaning that anyone who can read can see: that sometimes those orders might not be IC. No, there's no problem when IC orders are going out but two players who know each other talk about it, obviously.

There is a problem, however, when players choose to avoid using game mechanics. Communication OOG is fundamentally and by its very nature, in all circumstances at all times in all places, exclusive. Which is totally fine for shooting the breeze or OOC commentary on game events! But for IC character interactions? No. Realms run from IRC are as bad as Mendicant's multis, and just as exclusive.

[Vellos]

Also, on the "I know it when I see it" thing:

Magistrates cases have failed to identify that alleged phenomenon ever actually cropping up. Everybody has radically different definitions of what they know only when they see it.

[Kwanstein]

Much like stupid facebook posts, the problem here is that it costs relatively little to be annoying. Sure it takes time with VPNs or proxies but plenty of people have time.

If I had this problem, I'd charge 10 bucks a year to play BM. That barely covers the cost of a merchant services account, transaction fees, and the hassle of dealing with taxes and reporting. But it gives you something a lot more valuable than $10 * players: billing addresses and credit cards (last 4 only since you don't want to actually store the numbers). Lots of people have multiple cards but not multiple billing addresses. You don't even forbid it - you just check on it, because there are valid reasons why people share cards just like there are valid reasons why people share IPs.

This is by no means the only solution and you wouldn't even have to charge anything - you could just validate the card, but then you're out of pocket for the merchant services account and cost of doing so.

This would reduce player count, which would make the game less fun, which would reduce player count even more, which would reduce the fun even more, which would...

Not viable option.

[Phellan]

persons *gasp* know each other or *oh my god!* actually talk to each other sometimes.

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa.   Back up there.    What are "people" and whats this "talking" thing?   :o

RL Hax!   

[Gustav Kuriga]

Also, on the "I know it when I see it" thing:

Magistrates cases have failed to identify that alleged phenomenon ever actually cropping up. Everybody has radically different definitions of what they know only when they see it.

This... "I know it when I see it" is incredibly subjective, and really isn't a very good measure for determining anything, since everyone has different measures of what is and isn't "it".

[Penchant]

This... "I know it when I see it" is incredibly subjective, and really isn't a very good measure for determining anything, since everyone has different measures of what is and isn't "it".

And using that you could almost never fairly punish someone the first time since its not really defined they won't know if they have gone too far so a warning is the only fair punishment the first time. (I say almost never for those cases blatantly doing it to exclude certain people or something else that is obviously a bad thing to the violator and us.

[Feylonis]

So we CAN coordinate moves OOCly; that is not illegal and will result in punishment? That is the conclusion of High Above, yes?

[Phellan]

So we CAN coordinate moves OOCly; that is not illegal and will result in punishment? That is the conclusion of High Above, yes?

You shouldn't, is the advice everyone will give you.

Small, individual acts are probably done all the time.

Doing it in large groups will get you accused of playing as a clan or as multis - regardless, it's not pretty.

The advice, and suggestions will always be do everything IC so you can justify it all later. :) 

No one is saying don't talk OOC or remind folks or even plot (that's half the fun with friends!).    But always make sure whatever you talk about OOC that you do IG . . . you well, do IC as well.