Scenario: you put your time/efforts to play Diplomacy because you consider it rewarding and interesting. You disapprove metagaming, because in your opinion it comprimes the honesty/fun of the game (you believe everyone should start with same potential chances to win a game, then as game develops odds are going up or down).
In a particular game, you are playing Austria. You could have crashed Russia, but from previous games you learnt that, once Russia is gone, Turkey is a genie out of a box and the doom starts. So, instead of trying to destroy Russia, you let him stand as deterrent against Turkey.
Then Turkey accuses Russia and you of metagaming.
QUESTION: considering Turkey is an experienced player, at least according to his rank, what would YOU think?
a) Turkey is a smart, Machiavellian player. Using bogus complaints to move your focus away from the game. What a great player!
b) Turkey and Russia are up to something, and staging a fake disagreement. God saves me from allies, than I will take care of enemies :-)
c) Turkey is in immature player. He really believes what he says!
d) None of the above. Please enlighten me with your opinion!
In case this case falls in cluster "A", I will not add any additional message to the original ones. But I would love to know what you think about this.