Skip to main content

The Ethics of Diplomacy - Part 4: Cyber-bullying

I suppose this could be placed withing the metagaming section because it often takes the form of bringing something from outside the game into the game, but it isn't necessarily restricted to that.


Let's start with what bullying is when it comes to Diplomacy or any other game.  What we're not talking about is bullying as part of the game.  In other words, some players can be quite... forceful... in their negotiations.  This isn't what we're talking about.

Cyber-bullying is about threatening people with things outside the game to get things done in the game or, in some cases I've seen simple threats of violence.

The most likely threat is when a player will threaten another with persistent attacks when they come across each other in games.  This is metagaming, really: it's no different to planning to work together in future games.

However I've seen threats of violence.  It's sometimes linked to people from the same school.  But I've seen threats to find and kill the other person, to kill their families, etc.  And a common one is to hassle people across other websites.

Now, I know we're talking about internet play and this means you're always going to come across these types of idiots.  Angry little people who don't know how to deal with difficulties.  Let's face it, if you get this angry over a game, there's something wrong with you.

Intellectually, we also know that these idiots wouldn't have a clue about how to do what they're threatening to do in the real world.  And they probably like the gonads to do it.  But it is in no way acceptable in a game.

It also isn't acceptable on a site's forum.  I've been on one site where a number of members were allowed to hassle others.  One example of this was where a member of the forum was posting verses from the Bible regularly and being targeted by at least one member.

Personally I can be very critical of religion and especially when someone is proselytising.  However, when this is consistent and was accompanied by harassing someone across the forum, as it was in this case, this is clearly bullying.  And it was the same people seeking to troll others on the forum with whom they disagreed.

That was a while ago, though, and since then the mods on that forum have grown a pair and stopped this behaviour.  Freedom of speech, yes, but abuse of freedoms should always be stamped on.

Bullying also includes racism, sexism, language which is aimed at abuse towards sexual orientation, etc.  This is something that some players either haven't grown out of: online sites tend to have a large number of younger members.  But there are bigots, too.  Nasty or scared little people.

Any form of persistent harassment shouldn't be a part of this hobby and the best sites won't allow it.  This might offend some people who simply believe you can say what you want.  Some people believe that there are no limits if it's about upsetting someone in a game.  There are... or there should be.


THE ETHICS OF DIPLOMACY series:

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

WHAT IS DIPLOMACY? - Part 5: Variants

A variant is a game of Diplomacy where the rules or context are different from the standard game as designed by Allan B Calhamer.  There are three types of variants: context variants, map variants and rules variants. Context Variants Context variants are those games that are played with a wider context.  They may be tournament games, other scored games, or remote format  games.  These aren't often recognised as variants as such, as variants tend to be within the other two types discussed below.  But the context the game is being played in will have an impact on how some players will play the game, and so they are certainly a variation of Dip. Maybe they should be called "variations" rather than variants but does it really matter? Map Variants Diplomacy has been adapted to different maps, or boards.  Not surprising as the general idea of the game, pitting competing powers against each other in a localised region and time in history, can be adapte...

WHAT IS DIPLOMACY? - Part 1: A Brief Intro to Diplomacy

Let's get started by discussing the game itself. The Board The map Diplomacy is played on is based on Europe at the start of the Twentieth Century.  It doesn't reflect Europe literally but is stylised.  Not all the countries are there and some of the spaces are given names that are a little... questionable. The Diplomacy Board The map I've used above is something   like the original board published in Europe.  In the Americas (well, North America, I'm not sure about anywhere outside of USA and Canada) the map was less colourful and more a physical map.  But the spaces are roughly the same. Players control one of seven major powers in Europe: England (yes, not Britain or, even more accurately, the UK) France Italy Germany Austria-Hungary (usually shortened to Austria) Turkey Russia There are 56 land spaces.  34 of these spaces are called Supply Centres (SCs) that, when controlled by a major power, support an army or a fleet on ...

The Powers - Part 6: Walls of Steel

In this series, I'm going to take a brief look at the seven powers in the game of  Diplomacy.   This will be not much more than a brief introduction to each power, looking at their position on the board, their neighbours and the pros and cons of playing them.  More detailed strategy will follow in future posts. The witch in the east.  England and Turkey are often know as the "Witch of the East" and the "Witch of the West" respectively.  They are both incredibly difficult to eliminate, which earns them this sobriquet.  With England, of course, it's because she's surrounded by sea spaces and will - or should - have a number of fleets on the board to protect her.  With Turkey it is that she's always slow to break down.  Even with a Gobbler triple alliance (A/I/R) it takes time. One of the reasons for this is Turkey's position as a corner power.  You can't get in behind her... literally in this case. Turkey's most vulnera...