Eight Eagle-Eyed WISHes
Pick three gaming maxims that other people wrote about and discuss how you think they have applied, or not, in your experience as a gamer.
I GM for my husband. There are many good points, but also several bad points with this.
I've discussed previously the laughable idea that I give him preferential treatment. I've found out that I do it in one way: I'm letting him remain in my PBeM far past the point I'd ask another player to bow out from a character, despite his not making any moves. Part of it is because I do know why he has only limited chances to make those moves, and part of it is because his PC is only interacting with one other... who happens to be Our Sweetie. It does, however, limit the interactions that can be made with two series-pivotal characters.
On the other hand, I extend the courtesy to players who have impressed me with their grasp on a character, too. If someone's playing or someone's characterization has really, really grabbed me, I'll leave them in for a very long time... so it's not too preferential.
Some of our longest-lasting spats have been over the acceptance of characters he's made in games I've run. I've made him rewrite characters until I've been willing to accept them. (Over, and over, and over again.) I don't think he necessarily takes advantage of my being the GM (as in, yes, he tries new and unusual takes on characters, but no, that's really open to anyone) it's just that means I need to hold onto a certain vision more carefully.
I have taken some things in board games a little more personally than may have been necessary, but then, you've probably never played Illuminati with him. [grin]
I have rarely focused on the difference between good and evil as any kind of plot specific in my campaigns. If there's a choice of sides in my campaign, it is only which motivations you have to reach a certain goal.
The last AD&D game I ran had a little bit of a chaotic nature to it in that the characters were quite willing to ignore the concept of law and what kind of behaviour should be applicable in polite society. (Of course, we had a paladin-thief of Big Mac Daddy as the de facto group leader...) On the other hand, except for some accidental deaths...
With a strength bonus, a barbarian can kill a first level halfling mage simply by knocking into him...
...they were relatively on the side of "good." Some entropy is necessary, after all. (The Liberators in EarthDawn were probably my favourite character class, but then, I kind of like Robin Hood, too.)
When you stop trusting the GM, stop playing.
I've noted before that one should never, ever get into a game where they're directly against the GM. The GM has infinite hitpoints.
The GM does not have to be a fair arbiter. (In fact, most of the time you don't want something strictly "fair.") The GM does, however, have to maintain a certain level of distance between interest in the characters (including his/her NPCs) and interest in maintaining a plot.
GMs are, alas, only human. They can have bad days. They can be annoyed at players. Both will affect the game...the question is more in how the GM "recovers." Frankly, I think I could run a fair game with my ex-girlfriends in it. (I do have a couple of worries against playing with them mostly because if the game ever does come to PC versus PC, I will have a reason to use my 'abilities of immense snarkitude' towards them... but otherwise, I can mostly keep it to myself. [grin])
Abusing trust is very different. It's taking advantage of knowledge. ("The PCs are going to do this...so the NPC enemies are already prepared for it.") It's violating character concepts. ("She's a kick-butt vampire slayer... but she'll find herself as one of Dracula's Brides.") (OK, that last example COULD work... but only very carefully.) It's a number of other GM sins.
Having a GM is a very special relationship, but it still follows the rules: if you're not getting your needs met, or they're being abusive, leave... and everyone's measure of that will be different.