One very important part of preparing to GM a game of Diplomacy is to develop a complete and consistent set of house rules. If the house rules are incomplete or inconsistent, a decision by the GM that is unsupported by the house rules or supported in one part and contradicted in another part, can anger some or all of the players, sometimes to the extent that they leave the game or call for the replacement of the GM. The Model House Rules for Non-Judge E-Mail Diplomacy (the "MHR") is designed to help an inexperienced GM construct a logically consistent and complete set of house rules, and to help a veteran GM fill in any gaps in an already existing set. A prospective GM can copy the MHR, fill in a few blanks, and then where alternatives are presented, retain those alternatives that are preferable and remove the others.
Regarding the guiding philosophy behind the MHR, readers will notice a general tendency toward specifically determined results in situations involving interpretation of orders, and a slant toward allowing the GM discretion in areas involving management of the game as a whole. The choice of rules, however, is wide enough to satisfy the style and temperament of most GMs in a large variety of situations. For instance, a GM could pick lenient alternatives when GMing a game for newbies, or when playtesting a new variant, but choose more strict alternatives for a standard game with veteran players or when GMing in a tournament.
GMs can also keep an unedited copy of the MHR, or return to the web site for a new copy and start over, so it is very easy to have a completely different set of house rules for different games, or even to change the house rules during a game, if necessary. The MHR are located at http://homestead.juno.com/david_e_cohen/index.html and they are also archived at http://www.Cat23.com, the Cat23 website. The contributors to the MHR are all members of Cat23 and/or its offshoots. As the largest, and one of the oldest, non-judge communities in the e-mail Diplomacy hobby, Cat23 provided me with a pool of very experienced GMs to draw upon for raw material and suggestions. In addition to myself, people who have contributed either raw material or suggestions include Gregory Alexopoulos, Mike Ashland, Tim Beaman, Thaddeus Black, Doug Burgoyne, Sean "Blue" Cable, L. Steven Emmert, Cait Glasson, Steph Mabie, Ted Miller, Peter J. Richardson, Ray Setzer, Charles Steinhardt, Scott Troemel and David E. Watson. My apologies to anyone I have inadvertently left out.
For purposes of clarity in this article, the actual text of the MHR will be in italics, preceded or followed by my commentary on certain Sections in plain type.
I. GM Discretion, Rulebook:
(1) GM Discretion:
The GM shall have the discretion to disregard specific provisions of these House Rules in order to reach a result in keeping with the spirit and character of the game of Diplomacy, but will do so only after concluding that less drastic alternatives would be unsatisfactory.
A general-purpose safety valve, included to prevent the GM from being forced to decide a question in a way that would be contrary to common sense. Certainly, a GM would be well advised to think VERY long and hard before invoking this provision. If done cavalierly, the GM could develop a reputation for favoritism or arbitrariness, which could be a disaster.
(2) Rulebook:
[year] rules, published by [game publisher] will be used. In the event of incompleteness, ambiguity, or conflict in the rules, if the matter is not covered in these House Rules, the Diplomacy Player's Technical Guide will be followed [with the following exceptions, if any:]
The year and publisher of the rules was left blank intentionally, to allow the GM to use his or her own dog-eared copy. For those who are not aware, the Diplomacy Player's Technical Guide (the "DPTG"), which can be found at [insert hyperlink to DPTG], is an excellent resource designed to resolve certain ambiguities in the rules and inconsistencies between and among the various rulebooks, and to resolve some of the paradoxes that come up on occasion in play. It has been pointed out, however, that there are some possible ambiguities in the DPTG, and in addition, certain decisions were made in interpreting the rules by the drafters of the DPTG with which not everyone in the world of Diplomacy agrees. Here is where a GM would let prospective players know where the GM and the DPTG part company.
II. Order Writing, Generally:
(1) Interpretation of Orders:
Alternative A: Order sets and individual orders will be strictly construed for purposes of determining ambiguity or illegality.
Alternative B: Order sets and individual orders will be read with a presumption being made that each player wishes to submit a complete set of valid orders.
Obviously one of the most important decisions to be made by the GM, since the choice here will color the interpretation of many of the other rules. You will notice here, and in general, that the more "strict" alternative is typically listed first.
(2) Abbreviations and Typographical Errors:
Spelling out province names and other words used in orders is preferred, but
Alternative A: abbreviations as stated in the Rulebook are acceptable, as are the following: [insert abbreviation list here] Typographical errors and nonstandard abbreviations may serve to invalidate the orders.
Alternative B: any abbreviations that are not ambiguous, in the sole opinion of the GM, are acceptable. A typographical error that is nonetheless unambiguously understandable by the GM shall not serve to invalidate an otherwise valid order.
This is a perennial source of arguments. Whether the GM wants to exercise discretion is what will dictate the choice here, perhaps along with the experience level of the players.
(3) Status of Orders:
Submission of preliminary orders is strongly encouraged, but not required.
Alternative A: All orders will be considered final unless marked "Preliminary".
Alternative B: All orders will be considered preliminary unless marked "Final".
See Section IV. (2) below.
(4) Identification of Order Sets:
All order sets submitted must contain the following information and/or adhere to the following format in the Subject line of the e-mail:
[insert requirements here]
The GM may, but is not required to accept order sets that do not meet these requirements, nor shall the GM be required to search for nonconforming order sets.
An important rule for people like myself who receive over one hundred pieces of Diplomacy related e-mail per day.
(5) Orders Submitted by Proxy:
Alternative A: Orders submitted by proxy will not be permitted.
Alternative B: A player may designate another player to receive a proxy which would allow the receiving player to order one or more units of the player granting the proxy for the next turn only, whether it be a move turn, retreat turn, or adjustment turn. The units (or in the case of builds, the supply centers) for which the proxy is given must be specified exactly. The proxy will be effective upon acknowledgment by the GM. Acknowledgment shall be given to the granting player and the receiving player only, and shall not be made public by the GM. The granting player may revoke the proxy at any time. The revocation will be effective upon acknowledgement by the GM, and only the player revoking the proxy will be notified.
Something that was new to me when it was brought up, but evidently some GMs have been allowing the use of proxy orders. The rule is designed to make the granting of a proxy limited and unambiguous, so that arguments over the effectiveness of a proxy will be kept to a minimum.
(6) Contingent Retreat or Adjustment Orders:
Alternative A: Contingent retreat orders are required, and therefore no negotiations will be possible before retreats, as these will be combined with the movement turns. Players are strongly encouraged to submit contingent build or disband orders, when the situation of the game permits, as this will help speed the pace of the game and reduce the likelihood of NMRs occurring.
Alternative B: Retreat or adjustment turns shall be separate from movement turns. Contingent retreat orders are not required, and negotiations are allowed prior to a retreat or adjustment turn. Players are strongly encouraged, however, to submit contingent retreat, build or disband orders, when the situation of the game permits, as this will help speed the pace of the game and reduce the likelihood of NMRs occurring.
Three turn year or five turn year. A small minority of players in Cat23 believes that while the movement and retreat turns should be separate, no negotiation should take place, as stated in the rulebook. The majority feels that negotiation in the e-mail milieu cannot be regulated, and many believe that the game is improved by allowing it, in spite of the fact that the practice is forbidden in the rulebook. The general custom in Cat23 is to allow negotiation before a retreat turn.
(7) Multiple sets of orders:
The last set of orders submitted before the adjudication takes place will be used. In the event a partial set of revised orders are submitted,
Alternative A: previous order sets will be disregarded when the GM receives a revised order set. The GM shall not look to an earlier order set to fill in missing orders in a revised order set.
Alternative B: the GM shall adjudicate using the most recently submitted order set, but will examine previously submitted order sets in order to adjudicate with a full set of orders consisting of the most recently submitted order for each unit.
This Section is where the GM either undertakes or avoids having to piece together order sets from multiple e-mails.
III. Interpretation of Specific Orders:
(1) Movement Orders:
Alternative A: A unit ordered to move will not be allowed to receive support to hold, irrespective of whether the unit is able to move in the manner stated. For example an army in Rome ordered to move to Vienna, or Fleet Barents Sea ordered to move to Tahiti, may not receive support to hold. A misorder not implying movement, for example, Army Rome Eats Pasta or Fleet Barents Sea Goes Fishing, will be adjudicated as an order to hold. If an order set has been submitted, an unordered unit or units will be considered to have been ordered to hold, and may receive support to hold.
Alternative B: Any unit ordered to move to a named space on the board may not receive support to hold, irrespective of whether the unit is able to move in the manner stated. A unit ordered to move to a space not named on the board or a unit ordered to do anything else, may receive support to hold. If an order set has been submitted, an unordered unit or units will be considered to have been ordered to hold, and may receive support to hold.
Alternative C: Any unit adjudged by the GM to have been ordered illegally will be presumed to have been ordered to hold, and may receive support to hold. A unit will not be adjudged to have been ordered illegally, if, before the turn was adjudicated, such movement would have been possible with the aid of other units on the board, irrespective of nationality of such other units. If an order set has been submitted, an unordered unit or units will be considered to have been ordered to hold, and may receive support to hold.
A popular source of arguments, this rule addresses the distinction between a move order and a hold order. Note the difference between Alternatives A and B.
(2) Multiple Orders for Units:
In the event that a unit is ordered more than once within the same set of orders,
Alternative A: the unit shall be deemed to have been ordered ambiguously and shall be considered to stand if any of the orders for that unit were movement orders, and shall be considered to have been ordered to hold if none of the orders for that unit were movement orders. Duplicate orders will be treated as a single order for purposes of adjudication.
Alternative B: the unit shall be deemed to have been ordered ambiguously and shall be considered to stand if any of the orders for that unit were movement orders, and shall be considered to have been ordered to hold, if none of the orders for that unit were movement orders, however all invalid orders shall be disregarded before a determination is made as to whether a unit was ordered more than once. Duplicate orders will be treated as a single order for purposes of adjudication.
Alternative C: the [first] [last] order reading from top to bottom of the order set will be used.
The next several rules are fairly straightforward, and the alternatives are fairly obvious. This is a "meat and potatoes" area of the MHR, covering areas where problems frequently arise. A GM can be very strict here, very lenient, or somewhere in between. Rules 8 and 9 were added to version 2.1 of the MHR specifically in response to the arguments recently raging once more (inconclusively, as usual) in the Cat23 community regarding orders concerning provinces having more than one coast.
(3) Omitted Designations:
An omitted designation of the type of a unit (A or F) will:
Alternative A: invalidate the order.
Alternative B: not invalidate the order.
Alternative C: not invalidate the order unless there is another order with the correct designation of the unit in the same order set.
(4) Inaccurate Designations:
An inaccurate designation of the type of a unit (A or F) will:
Alternative A: invalidate the order.
Alternative B: not invalidate the order.
Alternative C: not invalidate the order unless there is another order with the correct designation of the unit in the same order set.
(5) Omitted Nationality of Units:
An omitted designation of the nationality of a supported or convoyed foreign unit will
Alternative A: invalidate the order.
Alternative B: not invalidate the order.
Alternative C: not invalidate the order unless there is another order with the correct nationality of the unit in the same order set.
(6) Inaccurate Nationality of Units:
An inaccurate designation of the nationality of a supported or convoyed foreign unit will
Alternative A: invalidate the order.
Alternative B: not invalidate the order.
Alternative C: not invalidate the order unless there is another order with the correct nationality of the unit in the same order set.
(7) Omitted Specification of Coast in Movement or Holding Orders:
An omitted specification of the coast of a province having two coasts in an order for movement or holding of a fleet will:
Alternative A: invalidate the order.
Alternative B: not invalidate the order if legal movement to only one coast of the province is possible for the fleet.
(8) Omitted Specification of Coast in Support Orders:
An order for support of a fleet to, from or in a province having two coasts, in which there is no specification of the coast of the province will:
Alternative A: invalidate the order.
Alternative B: not invalidate the order if legal movement to, from or in only one coast of the province is possible for the fleet being supported.
Alternative C: be a valid order for support of the fleet being supported, from or in either coast.
(9) Non-Corresponding Specification of Coast in Support Orders:
An order for support of a fleet to, from or in a province having two coasts, in which the coastal specification does not correspond to the coastal specification of the order for the unit being supported will:
Alternative A: invalidate the order.
Alternative B: not invalidate the order if legal movement to, from or in only one coast of the province is possible for the fleet being supported.
Alternative C: be a valid order for support of the fleet being supported to, from or in either coast.
(10) Excess Builds or Disbands:
If a player attempts to build or disband more units than the position would allow,
Alternative A: the builds will not be allowed, and the disbands will occur according to the rules for civil disorder removals in the Rulebook
Alternative B: the builds or disbands will be followed in order, from [top to bottom] [bottom to top] of the order set until the correct number of builds or disbands are reached.
(11) Multiple Builds in a Center:
If a player attempts to build more than one unit in a single turn in the same supply center,
Alternative A: no unit shall be built in the center if the build orders are for different types (A or F) of units, but duplicate orders will be treated as a single order for purposes of adjudication.
Alternative B: the first build order, reading from [top to bottom] [bottom to top] of the order set will be followed.
IV. Deadlines, Length of Turns, NMRs:
(1) Order Submission:
It is the responsibility of each player to make sure that a set of orders is submitted as required before the deadline for each turn. Time of submission of orders shall be considered to be when the GM receives the orders, not when the orders were sent, however, the GM shall have the discretion to accept late orders if it is proven to the satisfaction of the GM that the orders were sent prior to the deadline. Individual and/or broadcast reminders may be given, but the lack of a reminder will not serve to excuse failure to submit orders.
The onus is on the player to submit orders, not on the GM to make sure they are submitted.
(2) Timing of Adjudication:
Adjudication of a turn
Alternative A: will never take place before the deadline.
Alternative B: may take place early if all players have submitted final orders.
Remember Section II. (3)? This is where it has an impact on the flow of the game. A GM who wants to run a fast paced game should pick those alternatives that lend themselves to it, having a presumption that all order sets are final, and adjudicating early when possible. A GM who prefers a more regular and/or leisurely schedule will choose the other alternatives.
This was one of the more hotly debated provisions of the MHR. After much deliberation it was decided not to include alternatives providing for a grace period here, because of the ease of asking for an extension, and because the players will know going in what the pace of the game will be. Please examine the next two Sections regarding these points.(3) Orders After Deadline:
Alternative A: Orders will not be accepted after the deadline.
Alternative B: Orders will be accepted until the start of adjudication.
(4) Length of Turns
At least [number] days will normally be allowed for each movement turn. At least [number] days will normally be allowed for each retreat or adjustment turn, if there are separate retreat and adjustment turns. The GM may speed up or slow down the timing depending on the perceived complexity, to the GM, of the game situation, but will adhere to the original schedule if a faster pace is a hardship to any player.
The GM should emphasize this topic when advertising for players. Neither the GM, nor a prospective player would wish to have a game where a player was unable to cope with the schedule, either because it was too quick or too slow. The last sentence sets a basic safety level for the more deliberate player, or a player with limited e-mail access.
(5) Delays:
Requests for delay received before the deadline will generally be granted. The GM reserves the right, after a warning is given, not to grant further delay requests if the play, in the sole opinion of the GM, is being unduly or excessively disrupted. The GM may replace any player whose extended absence, or repeated absences, in the sole opinion of the GM, would unduly or excessively disrupt the flow of the game.
This clause seeks to balance the wishes of individuals asking for delays with the desires of others preferring a more expedited game adhering more closely to the originally stated deadlines.
(6) NMRs and Replacement of Players:
Alternative A: The GM will adjudicate with orders missing from one or more powers. Players failing to submit orders must contact the GM within [number] hours of the publication of the adjudication, or the GM will arrange for a replacement. The GM will normally attempt to contact the NMRing player publicly and privately before arranging for a replacement, but the GM, in the sole discretion of the GM, reserves the right to immediately replace an NMRing player after one or more NMRs.
Alternative B: The GM will adjudicate with orders missing from one or more powers, but will grant a one-time grace period of [number] hours to each player to attempt to prevent what would otherwise be the first NMR for that particular player. The grace period shall begin at the deadline for submission of the relevant order set. The GM may, but is not required, to notify the non-submitting player that the grace period is in effect, and the GM shall not inform the other players as to the reason for any delay in adjudication. Players failing to submit orders must contact the GM within [number] hours of the deadline plus the grace period if applicable, or the GM will arrange for a replacement. The GM will normally attempt to contact the NMRing player publicly and privately before arranging for a replacement, but the GM, in the sole discretion of the GM, reserves the right to immediately replace an NMRing player after one or more NMRs.
Alternative C: No NMRs will be allowed to have an impact on game play, and the game may be delayed in order for the GM to adjudicate with orders submitted from all powers. Players failing to submit an order set must contact the GM within [number] hours of the deadline and submit an order set, or the GM will arrange for a replacement. The GM will normally attempt to contact the NMRing player publicly and privately before arranging for a replacement, but the GM, in the sole discretion of the GM, reserves the right to immediately replace a player after one or more NMRs.
The Section you were all waiting for. Here is an alternative providing for a grace period, for those who want one in their house rules. It was decided not to offer an alternative with permanent or standing grace periods, because the repeated employment of such a grace period would amount to a de facto permanent extension of deadlines, which should only be done publicly and formally by the GM.
One possible time frame to use before searching for a replacement player is seventy-two hours from publication of the results in Alternatives A and B, or from the deadline for Alternative C, without a response from the player in question. There is no specific number of permitted NMRs before mandatory replacement in any of these alternatives. It has been left to the discretion of the GM. This writer's personal preference would be to give a final warning, and state that the next NMR by a particular player would result in automatic replacement. Note that Alternative C does not state that there can never be an adjudicated NMR. An example of a circumstance where an NMR might be adjudicated under this Alternative could be where the last Italian unit is Army Portugal, and any other units on the board could not affect an attack on Portugal by French units in Mid Atlantic Ocean and Spain in the next turn.
V. Adjudication Correction, Review:
(1) Players discovering errors in adjudication can bring them to the attention of the GM, who shall correct any errors. However,
Alternative A: if [number] hours pass after an adjudication is published, without correction of an error, the error shall stand.
Alternative B: if another adjudication is published, without correction of an error, the error shall stand.
The general feeling was that multiple turn rollbacks are to be avoided at all costs, and the alternatives are in keeping with this sentiment.
(2) Review of GM Decisions:
If a player feels that an adjudication error has not been corrected after having made a request for correction, the GM, in the sole discretion of the GM, may publicly or privately request advice from one or more persons of the GM's choice who are not involved with the game, but the GM shall not be bound by the opinions of the persons giving advice.
Alternatives calling for binding arbitration were considered and rejected. Overall considerations of game flow and GM discretion were found more important. The GM can, however, agree willingly to be bound by the ruling of a third party. If the GM refuses to correct an egregious error, the ultimate recourse of the players would be to find a new GM.
VI. Press:
(1) Acceptable Press:
The GM, in the sole discretion of the GM, reserves the right to refuse to publish a piece or pieces of press for any reason. In general,
Alternative A: press correctly identifying the author (white press), press to be published anonymously (gray press), and press attributed to another person (black press) will be accepted. The GM shall publish all press in a section of the adjudication separate from the orders of the individual players.
Alternative B: press correctly identifying the author (white press), press to be published anonymously (gray press), and press unofficially attributed to any person (dark gray press) will be accepted. Press officially attributed by the GM to another person (black press) will not be accepted. The GM shall publish all anonymous press and all press not officially identifying the author (non-white press) in an "Anonymous or Unofficial Press" section of the adjudication separate from the orders of the individual players. White press will be published with the orders of the author.
Alternative C: press correctly identifying the author (white press) and press to be published anonymously (gray press) will be accepted. Press attributed to any person unofficially (dark gray press) or officially by the GM (black press) will not be accepted. The GM shall publish all gray press in an "Anonymous Press" section of the adjudication separate from the orders of the individual players. White press will be published with the orders of the author.
Alternative D: press correctly identifying the author (white press) will be accepted. Press to be published anonymously (gray press), press attributed to any person unofficially (dark gray press), or officially (black press) will not be accepted.
The main thing to note here is the inclusion of a fourth type of press: "dark gray". This was done because some GMs will make distinctions between completely unattributed press (traditional gray press), press that is "officially" attributed by the GM, incorrectly, to another power (traditional black press), and press which the GM publishes as purporting to be from a specific power, but regarding which the GM makes no representation as to authenticity. This last type of press is what is labeled dark gray in the MHR.
(2) Disclosure of Authorship of Gray, Dark Gray or Black Press:
Authorship of gray, dark gray or black press
Alternative A: will never be revealed by the GM.
Alternative B: may be revealed in some or all instances, at the sole discretion of the GM, after the conclusion of the game.
Alternative C: will be revealed in some or all instances, at the request of any player or at the discretion of the GM, after the conclusion of the game.
Not a question of earth shattering in-game importance, but the choice made here may well have an effect on the over all level of civility in the game.
VII. Votes, Draws and Concessions:
(1) Wins:
Wins may be conceded only to a single player. All players remaining in the game must agree upon a concession unanimously. A single negative vote will defeat the proposal. All games are presumed to continue until a player wins by reaching eighteen supply centers, so an abstention or an uncast vote counts as a negative vote and defeats the proposal, however, a player for whom a conceded win is proposed shall be held to have voted for the proposal.
No provision is made here for any type of "joint win", since that would in fact be a draw. The presumption made is in keeping with the general bias in Cat23 against draws. The last clause is a recent addition, included to prevent a sure winner from prolonging the game when no one else wishes to continue.
(2) Draws:
Draws may or may not include all survivors, but must be agreed to unanimously by all players remaining in the game. A draw that does not include all survivors presumes the elimination of the players not included in the draw. All games are presumed to continue until a player wins by reaching eighteen supply centers, so an abstention or an uncast vote counts as a negative vote and defeats the proposal. If, after a period of [number] game years, no supply centers have changed ownership, the GM reserves the right, after a warning is given, to declare a draw including all survivors, but will only do so if no prospects exist for a player to win either by reaching eighteen supply centers or by concession of the other players.
Alternatives which permitted a majority or supermajority vote based on number of supply centers owned were rejected based on the presumption that a game should continue until one player is victorious. The remedy for a holdout player who does not wish to participate in a draw is the elimination of that player by the other players in the game. If this is not a possibility, the GM can end the game. An example of a circumstance where this last option might come into play is if a player holding St. Petersburg, Scandinavia, the English home centers and Portugal and the associated stalemate lines is holding out against two or more Mediterranean powers refusing, for whatever reason, to attack one another, and the players cannot agree to a draw. Obviously, the GM should not undertake to end a game in this manner lightly, which is why the provision is made for a warning to be given to the players of the impending declaration of a draw.
(3) Changes to House Rules:
Alternative A: No proposals may be made to change any of the house rules.
Alternative B: Proposals may be made to change any specific house rule or rules. All players remaining in the game must agree to any rule change unanimously. All house rules are presumed to remain unchanged, so an abstention or an uncast vote counts as a negative vote and defeats the proposal.
Under this rule, the GM will determine if the players will be allowed to change sections of the house rules during the course of the game. If a major controversy erupts with regard to a house rule, the alternative chosen here, together with the outcome of the vote, will determine whether one or more of the players and/or the GM may wish to consider resigning from the game.
(4) Confidentiality and Limitation of Proposals:
Votes will be due simultaneously with the next due date for orders. All votes will be secret and the result will be published instead of the relevant adjudication if the proposal is approved, or together with the adjudication, if the proposal fails. All votes may be submitted confidentially, players may submit revised votes, and the GM shall not reveal any information regarding the specific votes of an individual power, or the total of votes for or against any proposal. The GM, in the sole discretion of the GM, may refuse to conduct votes on repetitive or humorous proposals.
Alternative A: A player submitting a proposal shall be held to have voted for the proposal.
Alternative B: Players may vote for or against proposals that they submit.
Confidentiality of the votes of each player should be maintained at all times. For the GM to breach this confidentiality, even indirectly (by publishing information that, for example, enables other players to deduce how a particular player voted by process of elimination), would be unfair to the player whose vote became known, as the strategy and future plans of the player might be hinted at by the disclosure, or the player might become the target of concerted attacks which otherwise might not have occurred. The alternatives are here to give the GM some leeway in determining the extent to which proposals may be used as tactical ploys.
VIII. Ownership of Communications, Integrity of Identity and E-mail Systems
(1) Forwarding of E-Mails:
E-mails and other communications are the intellectual property of their author, but the GM and players, by virtue of agreeing to GM or play in the game, freely give permission for the use of those e-mails and communications by other participants as part of the play of the particular game for which the e-mails or other communications were sent, subject to the restrictions of this Section.
Alternative A: Forwarding of e-mails will not be restricted by the GM.
Alternative B: Forwarding of e-mails will be grounds for immediate replacement.
(2) Impersonation of Players or GM, Subversion of E-Mail Systems:
Alternative A: Impersonation of one player by another will not be restricted by the GM, as long as this occurs between the players without the involvement of the GM, and does not involve subversion of the e-mail systems of others. Any attempt to deceive or impersonate the GM, or to subvert the integrity of the e-mail system of the GM, another player, or a third party will be grounds for immediate replacement.
Alternative B: Impersonation of one player by another, attempted deception or impersonation of the GM, or subversion of the integrity of the e-mail system of the GM, another player or a third party will be grounds for immediate replacement.
We finish with two more hot-button issues. Even though the opinion of the majority of the contributors and of the Cat23 community at large is that forwarding of e-mails and impersonation of other players are valid (if perhaps unsavory, often ineffective, and definitely risky-if another player who abhors the practices finds out!) tactics, and within the spirit of the rules, a vocal minority, with very strongly held opinions, feel that the practices should not be permitted. The alternatives here accommodate each viewpoint. Finally, please note that this article is based on version 2.2 of the MHR. It will probably not be the last version. I welcome suggestions for additions and changes, and I would also like to hear from GMs who are actually using house rules derived from the MHR in the games they are GMing. Please e-mail me at [email protected] with your comments.
|
David Cohen ([email protected]) |
If you wish to e-mail feedback on this article to the author, click on the letter above. If that does not work, feel free to use the "Dear DP..." mail interface.