'Spying' definition and pushing for better relations through chat

MrWhereItsAt · March 12, 2004, 06:53

Recently an issue came up about chatting. I was chatting to a member of another faction about the game. We exchanged some limited information, and then I (do not know about the other party) posted the info I learned in the CPU forum. This was instantly edited by Tass, under the auspices that it was effectively illegal, as it was the result of discussions from two non-official members of factions. I have since come to accept this. For the moment.

Now am I alone here, or does anyone else think it is patently silly to ban inter-faction comms unless through the one or two people given suitable official status by their factions? I thought we were playing a multi-faction DG for the purpose of communicating between factions, to communicate amongst ourselves and to above all have some fun with friends and like-minded posters. In my eyes chatting is a tool that helps this, and restricting such a thing as chatting is denying the whole reason for this style of DG, and only furthers tensions between factions, something all to evident recently, and through the past.

So, I start this thred to revise the debate I have been told happened before (without my knowledge or blessing I might add). Is it not ridiculous to disallow comms between competing faction members on the basis they have no official status? I think so. There are many here I would consider friends, and I think I could contribute to my faction and others by being able to exchange information with these friends in some manner. I daresay others believe this too. Do we not want to encourage more people to contribute rather than restrict participation?

Please, post here so we can continue debate on this, and I hope we all can realise that we should de-restrict chatting in this game, and the only thing we should control is sensitive faction information, which is something the individual factions should maintain, and that is not a matter for the mods. I want an end to the bitterness and bickering also, and if we can all talk together then I think this would go a long way to fixing that too.

FlameFlash · March 12, 2004, 10:45

I don't see anything wrong with chatting.

To me this is like role-playing and when I'm chatting with somebody from 'poly over one of the IMs I'm chatting with a friend, not a player of an enemy faction.

Everything discussed I consider OOC. Maybe I'm being naive...

but that's how chatting with friends goes in P&P RPGs so why shouldn't it apply here?

I think Tass was correct in editing the post, however, as since it was OOC info, while perfectly acceptable, it shouldn't be used IC, IMHO.

Snowflake · March 12, 2004, 14:11

I agree that faction sensitive information should be restricted. But chatting should be allowed. For example, if members of one team try to communicate with another team aiming to improve relationship I don't see why this should be prohibited. On the other hand if people interexchange sensitive information such as passwords, production plans and other info of this nature without getting approval from the team then it may be problematic.

MrWhereItsAt · March 12, 2004, 19:43

So far we have positive reactions to this from two who could perhaps be considered officials for their factions, and I am fairly sure I speak for my faction here too.

Of course faction sensitive information should be controlled, but that should be done by the faction itself. If you have someone in your ranks who would risk that, then it should be the faction's job to censure them, not the mods'. After all, it should be the individual faction who decides which information was appropriate to exchange at that time and which was inappropriate, and Tass or Googlie's opinions may not necessarily reflect those faction choices at all times. They would try their best, but couldn't be right every time, not with 4 human factions.

So, assuming there is no objections so far, I would like to putt forward the proposal we create a rule to poll on about chatting. This rule would state that the information from chats can be posted by their respective contributors to their team forums, unless it can be shown that there was a deliberate deception/really stupid mistake, for example two people chatting where one thought they were both on the same faction.

I don't think we should include any reference n this rule to 'sensitive information', as a faction may want to discuss such information with another faction at times. I think that the matter of what to restrict and punishment for any who viloate the rule should be left up to the faction(s) concerned. Sound OK?

Now is the time for discussion on this, any suggested changes or potential problems with this. Cheers guys.

Nubclear · March 12, 2004, 21:00

One potential problem is that if there is a spy, I wouldn't be legally able to inform the other faction about him.

MrWhereItsAt · March 12, 2004, 21:33

What would a spy do? As long as chatlogs were posted then everyone would be able to determine if the information exchanged was appropriate or not. How would a spy work? This is the one thing I am confused on.

Nubclear · March 12, 2004, 21:47

Go in, find out info, and tell someone in the other faction without telling anyone else.
Then that someone else could utilize the information.

MrWhereItsAt · March 13, 2004, 23:12

So what you're talking about is actually nothing to do with chatting, but rather on controlling who is granted access to team forums. As long as any new members are vetted, then we are handling that issue.

And if you mean someone going into a chatroom where private discussions are going on and taking away info they shouldn't have, that's easy to control too - either you have a DCC chat that no-one can butt in on, or you use the system of password protecting rooms. EASY!

Or is there another type of spy you're worried about? So far I haven't had described to me any type of 'spying' that means we need to be worried about inter-factional chatting. Í'll give this another day or two and if there are no more details to be worked out then it's time for a poll.

Googlie · March 14, 2004, 14:54

Well for the first 40 or 50 turns there didn't seem to be any actions taken by any faction based on info that they couldn't have gotten in-game (I checked every faction's turn against its previous)

Early on there was quite a lot of suspicion re double log-ins, password hacking, etc etc, but I couldn't see any evidence of that being the casw.

I can't vouch for recent turns, though as I lost most of my CMN motivation after several questionings of my objectivity. (If you recall I refused to rule on the PEACE Command Center disbanding issue for precisely that reason - although I did - and still do - think that their action was legitimate)

But I deferred to Tass - and thanks, Tass, for stepping into the breach and assuming the fulll CMN workload since then.

On this issue, it's surely one that needs resolving before the next Democracy Game - if multi-faction (especially if allowing chats before in-game contact - or allowing diplos before in-game contact - have the CMN set it up that way

G.

Nubclear · March 14, 2004, 16:30

Quote:

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
So what you're talking about is actually nothing to do with chatting, but rather on controlling who is granted access to team forums. As long as any new members are vetted, then we are handling that issue.

"Vetted"....Interesting choice of words

Anyway, but what are you going to check for, and more importantly how? Are you going to check whether the person is friends with someone else in the game?
Are you going to request all their MSN logs, or chat logs in general? How are you going to see the difference between a spy and a real player?

Quote:

Or is there another type of spy you're worried about? So far I haven't had described to me any type of 'spying' that means we need to be worried about inter-factional chatting. Í'll give this another day or two and if there are no more details to be worked out then it's time for a poll.

OK, here's what its like:

A person requests to join Faction1. They get approved as technically they still have done nothing wrong, and thereffore there really is nothing to see in the verification.
They decide to tell someone in Faction2 about some things.
If I understand correctly, what your proposing is to make this legal!

I see Googlie is being as diplomatic as ever

Drogue · March 14, 2004, 18:23

Tass: I agree that should be legal, with the caveat of faction 1 being told about it. If faction 1 wishes to expecl said member for it, then that's fine.

Or you could do a probation period. After 1 month of service people are allowed to chat to other faction members. After a month, you have shown loyalty, and that you are on their side, and not being a mole. Spying is wrong. Unauthorised diplomacy isn't spying, unless it is done with the intent of helping faction 2.

Snowflake · March 15, 2004, 10:57

Another criteria might be consistency. A one time slip may just be what it is, a simple mistake. However if somebody persistently tells other factions things that should not be told then he may be defined as a spy.

The problem is that this is very hard for a faction to find out. In the real world there are many times crucial plans are not disclosed to the general public especially for that reason. However since this is a demo game this kind of courses will be (and have be) violently fighted against. In other words, a faction faces the risk of info being leaked without being able to control or even detect. The only solution to me is that everybody in the game should self police. In addition, the CMNs should be able to act for the sake of just and balance.

Trithemius · March 16, 2004, 02:06

Possibly reduction of the number of people in the faction forums might help? A bit of assertiveness on the part of the leaders probably would not go astray here, afterall "loose lips, sink ships"*.

*This is not a comment on the recent CyberCon/PEACE fracas...

Voltaire · March 16, 2004, 02:30

There is in effect no way to police what goes on in private conversations over instant messaging. If one party wants to post the conversation I would request that two things be done, a) that the other party/parties involved be asked if they want the information made public (it should only be done with the consent of all involved), and b) that the factions of the parties involved be notified of any such exchanges. I think this fair in order to control the flow of sensitive information.

MrWhereItsAt · March 16, 2004, 02:49

As Voltaire says, nothing any of us can do can stop someone from giving sensitive information away. There needs to be a level of trust. I would hope that this game was like all other DGs, where the leaders of each faction were trusted and bound to report any dodgily obtained information. On the basis that there is no way to secure complete safety of all information, why should we chat at all?

Let's not be so concerned about what may be. Can we just try to encourage chatting by derestricting it? Does anyone agree with Tass that, since we can never be certain, we should stop chatting?

Trithemius · March 16, 2004, 05:22

Quote:

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
Let's not be so concerned about what may be. Can we just try to encourage chatting by derestricting it? Does anyone agree with Tass that, since we can never be certain, we should stop chatting?

You cannot stop chatting. I think it is best to let factions internally police a little more vigourously.

Jamski · March 16, 2004, 05:34

Or just accept a certain level of "information smuggling" and react accordingly (i.e. smuggle false information to disinform, act differently to what was planned in the public forum, use a code...)

-Jam

Maniac · March 16, 2004, 14:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Jamski
(i.e. smuggle false information to disinform, act differently to what was planned in the public forum, use a code...)

You like to do that very much, no? You're pathetically bad at it though.

Jamski · March 16, 2004, 14:15

We cracked your code, dammit

Or are you referring to the "Hive secret forum" scandal?

-Jam

Maniac · March 16, 2004, 14:17

I'm referring to you claiming the Hive has planet busters etc.

Jamski · March 16, 2004, 14:20

That post was intended humerously I believe

Oh... so was yours

-Jam

GeoModder · March 16, 2004, 14:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Jamski
We cracked your code, dammit

Correction: Kody did that, and technically he's not a Hive member any more.

Jamski · March 16, 2004, 14:33

It was a team effort... vev was very involved too... but he's dormant now too... umm...

Ok, we suck at being secret agents

Dammit.

-Jam

Impaler[WrG] · March 16, 2004, 17:54

Bring on the PLUMBER!!

Jamski · March 17, 2004, 04:24

I bet that's really funny, but I don't get it

-Jam

Impaler[WrG] · March 17, 2004, 06:03

If a goverment has LEAKS then they recuit agents know as PLUMBERS to FIND AND STOP the LEAKS. Make sense now?

Jamski · March 17, 2004, 06:35

Oh yeah

I didn't think of leaks :stupid:

-Jam

GeoModder · March 17, 2004, 07:13

Lucky for our mole...

MrWhereItsAt · March 17, 2004, 08:28

OK, well with no more disagreements with any of the above (and no more serious discussion of ANY sort taking place here

), I consider this discussion effectively done. Time for me to put together a poll and get the rules firmed up in favour of freer chatting!

Impaler[WrG] · March 17, 2004, 10:23

Moles and Leaks are different.

Moles are people who have ligitimat access to inteligence (their members of the goverment) who are recruited by forign goverments to send them information (usaly for money or ideological reasons).

When a Mole is "Turned" he becomes a double agent and sends the forign goverment false information.

When people speak of leaks they are usualy refering to intentialy, voluntary and secret releses of information to the general public made without the active partispation of a forign power. Leaks my come from individuals who feel they will benifit if the secret becomes general knowlage or even whole organizations that desides to leak a piece of information.