I recognize that some users will think that I am being needlessly touchy here, but the way that I see it is that there is no reason that I play in a game where I feel as though there is a significant ethical concern in that there are plenty of other games that I could play in in which there aren't any. Diplomacy is a game that we all choose to play and I would rather not play in a game if I do not think that a situation is in the spirit of the rules of the game. I would rather play in another Dip game instead. I don't want this to drag out or be a big scene here. That is not right either, so I would just like to be replaced in the game.

Thank You,
Civwarbuff

Pushing to the top.

I would have helped if capt brad wasnt in the game. That guys a douchè

I appreciate the message. You can see that my position is very workable in the game, so I am hoping that someone will pick it up.

Pushing to top.

Looking for replacement. Pushing to the top.

Very workable position as Italy. Need a replacement player. Pushing to the top.

ssorenn. i looked up your name in the dictionary; it is the definition of 'bloody stool'.

well i would rather cancel the game. i came in under your invitation, [civwarbuff] so if you are not going to play, i want out too.

civwarbuff, I don't think you have a legitimate claim of an ethical violation here. HR was under no obligation to disclose his identity when he was sitting captainmeme's account, nor was he obliged to keep his identity secret. Moreover, he was not obliged to be consistent across the players in the game in his decision to remain anonymous or disclose his identity. Your complaint that some knew who he was and some didn't made the game unfair to those who were not in the know is specious. Seems like you did find out the identity of the player sitting captainmeme's account, and you yourself state the game is early and your position workable.

As it stands, any action to alter this game based on your claim is a slippery slope to legitimize other claims of unethical behavior where none exist. Diplomacy is a game of deception, manipulation, deceit, trust and judgement. It's pretty much no holds barred in this game. You just have to accept that and push forward. If you find that unacceptable, you might consider taking up a game called Risk.

Damn OB. Laying it out

It appears that CivWarBuff likes to look at a player's game history and analyse their performance and how they play. I guess if that's his practice, it would seem unfair that some players would be able to analyse HR's performances as Germany in previous games, while some would be prevented from doing so due to HR's identity being withheld.

It doesn't help that HR was quite flippant and cheeky to CivWarBuff when the issue was raised.

Jamiet99uk,
That was really the issue. It was a non-anonymous game and I just asked who they were. If you refuse to tell me I don't think that you can go and tell other players. I objected to that and I was mocked for it. That is fine, but I would rather someone else then play.

I never intended it to be a scene. I will not mention another word about it if that fixes it.

I am just going to play the game.

Yeah it's good you decided to stop being a whining asshole about someone having a sitter. Having a sitter is perfectly acceptable and your tantrum was pathetic.

In fact claiming that knowing who someone is in a game can impact how you play is admission of metagaming. Allowing factors outside the game, such as a persons game history, or previous experiences impact how you play with them in the game is punishable metagaming when proven. So your bitching about an allowable occurrence is actually an admission to a technical violation of the rules.

Not one I'd recommend punishment for, but think on who was really at fault here. Tip...it was you.

@ Jmo: Buuuuuuuuullshiiiiiiit.

That kind of metagaming has previously been declared not to be a violation of the rules.

Isn't that denying reality though? Rightly or wrongly, how you worked with a player in a previous game will consciously or subconsciously affect how you work with them in subsequent games. If your definition of metagaming is so broad, you are pretty much going to have to ban everyone.

Except me, of course, since I only play anonymous gunboat...:P

@Jmo is it seriously against the rules to see how a person has acted previously and act accordingly?

This was brought up by he-who-cannot-be-named a good while ago and declared at the time to NOT be cheating.

When did the rules change?

@jamiet is his name actually he-who-cannot-be-named, or is there a person we refuse to name?

Again, I have no regrets for having asked who the player was in a non-anonymous game, especially when other players were being told. To be mocked for that is embarrassing.

I have looked at whether I would have done that differently and I am confident that I did absolutely nothing wrong there.

I regret the situation becoming acrimonious.

@jamiet, it was never discussed on how changing how you're treating a power midgame because they got a sitter should be viewed. What was discussed was non-anon in general. Not a potentially game changing alteration which really shouldn't be considered if a sitter is doing their job and following the plan of the player they are sitting for.

@Ezio
There is a player who was banned and asked not to be named anymore.

@ Jmo: The point is, you asserted that looking at an opponent's previous games is illegal metagaming.

This has previously been declared not cheating.

The real question becomes: is all metagaming cheating?

Well previously it was declared not to be so. But now Jmo says the rules have changed...

Hm, jmo isn't a mod from what I can tell. Why is his word so important to you?