Contrary to the illiterate reports in Big Week

[Otter]

Nothing I posted in the general forum or the Allied forums disclosed any tactical information whatsover.

I really enjoyed the historical misinformation and refusal to face the real issues hidden by the red herring draggers.

The fact remains if folks want to cheat nothing (other than a refusal to use any info gained illicitly) is going to stop them and stifling webboard participation is the last thing your fledgling scenarios need.

           

[Blue Mako]

Agree 100% Otter.  The only way scenarios can be successful is if people enjoy themselves.  If you can't even discuss things openly in your side's private forum then I can't see how it can be enjoyed.  If there are concerns about people getting unauthorised access then it should be handled by trying to raise the standards of the people involved (by asking people to honour the scenario rules/ettiquette) not by muting those who have something to say...  If people abuse the rules, dump them and change the forum password, don't jump all over people on your own side.  After all, we are playing a game here...

[Wotan]

all them villagers chasin you with torches and pitch forks means your doing something right.

Dont worry about them enjoy yourself and take yourself out of situations where your ideas and expectations seem to be in conflict.

They dont give a toejam what kinda fun you have as longs as you let them define it. Speak up and well you see it now.........

[Seeker]

What the water rat said.

[funkedup]

Nothing I posted in the general forum or the Allied forums disclosed any tactical information whatsover

As much as I dislike some of Otter's behavior this is absolutely true.

Fledgling... LOL where have you been?    

[Kieran]

Not to beat a dead horse, what it DID do was cast aspersions upon the your group CO's and even the Allied Command's battle plan and intent. You can judge whether you used the proper venue to accomplish that or not.

[Ratbo]

I'm only gonna adress the subject of cheating here.

There in no reason whatsoever that battle plans should *not* be able to be openly discussed in the team's secure forums.

If someone feels that he needs to play "secret squirrel" about the plans because the password protected forums are not secure then there's another problem...

TRUST

A command staff MUST be able to trust the command staff of the opposing team to throw any spies or cheaters directly under the bus and notify opposing command of the breach.

Spies CANNOT be modeled in a scenario environment. Anyone caught spying/cheating in any way should be banned from scenario play to insure the integrity of "the game".

We need HONEST rats....    

-W

[Dinger]

It's very simple.  I outlined exactly what Otter disclosed.  It shouldn't have been.  So it wasn't the plans themselves, but he gave plenty of circumstantial information that could be used to create an "intelligence picture" of Sunday's frames.
I agree fully that plans should be discussed in secure forums.  Orders do not need to be discussed; once they're orders, it's done.
As far as making rules against espionage goes, I believe that it _can_ be modeled, and that we _can_ have some enforceable rules to prevent cheating.
Don't say anything vague like "espionage under any form" -- what about if you overhear something in the TA?  What about ATC's little channel one blunder in Frame 4?  Heeding that kind of information would be grounds for expulsion.

Just state that anybody gaining information as the result of illegal activity should be reported and subject to discipline, which includes banning from scenarios altogether (and is probably a violation of TOS, so you can just jettison them from AH).  This will take care of those who try to hack secure areas or misrepresent themselves to gain access to confidential information ("Hey bob, I'm missing the plan for Sunday, could you email me another copy?").
Then say that anyone who willfully passes confidential information to someone on the other side is subject to the same punishment.  That will take care of double-accounters, moles, malicious people upset with their mission plans and so on.  By saying "willfully," I exclude people like Otter here who, in the name of "The highest moral integrity", disclose information about orders to the other side.
There you have two rules that clearly delineate what behaviour is unacceptable, and the punishment for it.  These rules are already implicit in the way these scenarios are run (and may even be explicitly stated).
--and they leave room for legitimate espionage (hmm... I saw five guys from squad X practicing NOE B17 runs today in the main...).  You put these restrictions out there and intelligence gathering remains an art form, not some gamey tactic for a snot-nosed 10-year-old with a couple of scripts.

[ 12-18-2001: Message edited by: Dinger ]

[Otter]

Originally posted by Dinger:
It's very simple.  I outlined exactly what Otter disclosed.  It shouldn't have been.  So it wasn't the plans themselves, but he gave plenty of circumstantial information that could be used to create an "intelligence picture" of Sunday's frames.


roadkill, the exact phrase was "Orders for BG 95" if you think that is secret information then every "Checking in" message in the private forum violated the same anal secrecy code you think should exist.

The only way someone could have identified AND utilized that info was to be logged into the scenario as ALLIED on one computer and pass on group location information to the AXIS on another. And if someone were such a cowardly salamander to do that then don't you think they'd have alot more access to intelligence than a UBB board and that the AXIS command staff would have to be the biggest bunch of cheaters since the East Germans?

[pbirmingham]

Originally posted by Dinger:
Orders do not need to be discussed; once they're orders, it's done.

I dunno, maybe we should model questioning illegal orders...

[Dinger]

Like I said elsewhere: planning and strategy can be open to discussion, but once it goes to orders, there's more to lose than gain.

You can do that through the chain of command.  As someone else said elsewhere, this isn't a town meeting.  You're given orders: you can follow them, not follow them, or register an objection with the superiors.  None of those options involve compromising operational security.

I mean, hell, there were some things to object to: B17s should never pull immelmans -- they're lousy as combat maneuvers.

And Otter, if a tactic's success depends on complete surprise, any action that mitigates that surprise should be avoided.
Your self-righteous discussion in the Allied forum was bad enough, but coming in to the main forum and advertising that you, Otter, of the 95th Bomb Group, were asked to remove your public objection to a direct order that you felt violated the rules and the spirit of a game, is downright treasonous.
If you have a problem, take it up with a CO.  If you still object, inform a CM, but don't expect a reversal based on your objection.  The Allies did nothing in any of the frames that the COs were not informed of three days before.

Oh, and "checking in" doesn't compromise anything anyway.  Your unit affiliation is publicly available.

[Otter]

Originally posted by Dinger:
.
Your self-righteous discussion in the Allied forum was bad enough, but coming in to the main forum and advertising that you, Otter, of the 95th Bomb Group, were asked to remove your public objection to a direct order that you felt violated the rules and the spirit of a game, is downright treasonous.
<bs snipped>
.

You have two problems Dinger, first of all your reading comprehension level is just about zero, nowhere in my  original post in the General forum do I refer directly to anything other than that I was asked to delete a post due to security issues.

There is no reference WHATSOEVER to what was in that private UBB post. I made a general reference that ALL gameplayers have the right and responsibility to play fair AND that included questioning bad orders and unfair gameplay.

Number two I am indeed self righteous and you're just jealous that I posses a spine AND a brain.

Here it is AGAIN. In its entirety; feel free to apologize when the light bulb finally goes on.

I have been asked by a member of the BigWeek scenario command staff to delete references to a tactical mission in the Allied message board because the board has been compromised.
With all due respect I cannot and will not do so. Any individual who participates in a scenario and would seek to break the rules in such a way deserves no part of this community and I would expect the command staff and participants of each side to honor the confidentiality of all plans and communication of the opposing force up to and including notifying HiTech Creations of anyone violating those standards.


This is just a game that is true, however, games are only worth winning when the letter and spirit of the rules are followed.

The highest order of integrity demands that we abide by a code of honor that states I will not lie or cheat or tolerate those who do and that everyone has the right (and duty) to question unlawful orders or unfair gameplay.

[Lizard3]

Originally posted by Dinger:


Then say that anyone who willfully passes confidential information to someone on the other side is subject to the same punishment.  That will take care of double-accounters, moles, malicious people upset with their mission plans and so on[ 12-18-2001: Message edited by: Dinger ]

OK, I'd like to report half the CM crew NOT directly involved with BigWeek  

They're a leaky bunch fer sure!

[Dinger]

Okay, I bow down to your superior genius, Otter. Now, for the reading rainbow crowd of Aces High, please explain to us how your post does not indicate that you made references to a tactical mission in the Allied Board.  While you're at it, explain what your comment about having "the right" to question what to your superior intellect appears to be "unlawful orders or unfair gameplay" has to do with keeping the forums secure.

Hell, the scenario's over; you didn't give the enemy the plans, but you sure as hell did provide them with additional intelligence. They may not have acted on it, but that doesn't mean it's not there. You're not going to convince me I'm slandering you, and certainly not by stooping to personal insults.

Hell, even when I call banana incompetent, I'm referring to his management of a specific issue, and not to him as a person.

And Lizard, that's cute.  Guess what? I agree with you that the information that was posted on the Allied forum shouldn't have been.  And guess what? All those other accusations against the CM crew are a load of crap.
Hmmm...come to think of it, that is a good example, Lizard: a well meaning person gets access to non-necessary information on a secure board, and somehow some fragment of it ends up in the hands of the enemy.  If that happens to the pretty small and relatively disciplined CM crew, imagine what might happen between two sides on a scenario.  Gee, operational security is a silly idea, eh?

[ 12-18-2001: Message edited by: Dinger ]

Edit: Ratbo, I'm referring to his post in the general forum, where he claims for himself both the "highest moral integrity" and divulges information about the Allied mission.

[ 12-19-2001: Message edited by: Dinger ]

[Ratbo]

Umm - the Allied Board is password protected and supposed to be secure. By DESIGN.

I should be able to discuss my noodle size there with no fear of Axis knowledge. If that's not the case - the gig is *broken*.

At a fundimental level.

Hey Allies!!! - I'm gonna give you your orders! Please do not disuss them or debate them on the Password Protected Allied Boards!

Those boards are not really to plan the event!! You should instead discss the weather there.  Pa Leeeeeese!

-W

Originally posted by Dinger:
[QB]Okay, I bow down to your superior genius, Otter. Now, for the reading rainbow crowd of Aces High, please explain to us how your post does not indicate that you made references to a tactical mission in the Allied Board.